1999 (8) TMI 122 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of action u/s 158BD.
2. Additions made in the block assessment.

Summary:

1. Validity of action u/s 158BD:
A search was conducted at the premises of M/s. Bhagat Industrial Corporation and Shri R.D. Bhagat, during which books of accounts and documents related to M/s. Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. were seized. The Dy. CIT, Amritsar, handed over these seized materials to the AO of M/s. Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. under s. 158BD. The assessee challenged the validity of this action, arguing that the Dy. CIT, Amritsar, had not recorded his satisfaction as required under s. 158BD. The Tribunal held that the action under s. 158BD was proper and valid, as the correspondences and the order in the case of M/s. Bhagat Industrial Corporation indicated the satisfaction of the Dy. CIT, Amritsar. The Tribunal also clarified that there is no requirement in s. 158BD for recording satisfaction before handing over the seized documents.

2. Additions made in the block assessment:
- Unexplained Advances:
The AO added Rs. 27 lakhs as unexplained advances to M/s Mini Exports and Rs. 10 lakhs as unexplained cash payment to M/s Verma Tarafaq Instruments (P) Ltd. The Tribunal upheld these additions, stating that the explanations and affidavits provided by the assessee were not convincing and acceptable.

- Interest on Advances:
The AO added Rs. 6,48,000 as estimated interest on the undisclosed advance of Rs. 27 lakhs. The Tribunal upheld this addition, noting that the AO was justified in estimating the interest at 24% based on the assessee's other loan transactions.

- Other Additions:
The Tribunal found the additions of Rs. 3,53,013 and Rs. 80,000 for the devaluation of stock of shares, Rs. 5,47,460 for undisclosed lease rent, Rs. 95,799 for bad debts, and Rs. 82,253 for short-term capital loss on the sale of a car were not justified. The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider these issues, verify the facts, and provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain the matter.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, upholding some additions while directing the AO to reconsider others.