9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assistance and did not submit the explanation to all documents seized from premises of the assessee. The AO also observed that the assessee had also not co-operated during the search proceedings and even at the time of recording of statement after search, the assessee remained non-co-operative. The AO, therefore, completed the assessment on the basis of material available on record. The total income of block period was computed at Rs.9,23,97,881/-. The assessee had disputed the additions before CIT(A) who had allowed certain relief to the assessee against which the present appeal has been filed by the revenue. 2.1 At the time of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the case though the notice of hearing had been given well in advance. The perusal of records shows that on earlier occasions also the assessee, had either sought adjournment or had not appeared at all. On the last date of hearing on 26.3.2012, the case was adjourned to 28.6.2012 as last chance to the assessee but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. We, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had disputed the decision of AO. In appeal, CIT(A) observed that, in his opinion, there was no sufficient material available on record to support the decoding of figures made by AO. CIT(A) observed that assessment could be made only on the basis of entries made in the documents and there could not be any presumption that the figures were written in codes. CIT(A), therefore, upheld the addition only to the extent of Rs.62,99,805/- on the basis of exact entries appearing in the documents and thus deleted the balance amounts, aggrieved by which the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 Before us, the ld. DR appearing for the revenue assailed the order of CIT(A). It was submitted that CIT(A) was not correct in stating that the AO had no material to decipher the transactions noted in the documents. He referred to para 4,5 and 6 of page 3 and 4 of the show cause notice dated 28.1.2005 issued by the AO to the assessee which shows why the AO had added certain number of zeros to the figures entered in the documents. Copy of the said notice was placed on record. In the said paras, the AO had given basis for arriving at the said conclusion which had not been controverted before CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote books as the same were not part of regular books of accounts. Alternatively, it was also submitted that even if the entries were taken as representing sales, only profit on account of these sales could be brought to tax and not the entire sales. CIT(A) accepted the alternative claim of the assessee and directed the AO to add only GP on the unaccounted sales on the basis of GP rate declared by the assessee in the regular books of account. Aggrieved by the said decision the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 Before us, the ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition only to the extent of GP. It was pointed out that corresponding purchases had already been recorded in the books and, therefore, entire sales had to be added. It was accordingly urged that the order of CIT(A) should be set aside. 4.2 We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding addition of Rs.39,92,333/- made by AO as unaccounted sales based on the entries made in the seized documents. There is no dispute that the entries represented sales of Rs.39,92,333/- and the only dispute is whether the entire sales should be added to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO to delete the addition. In regard to addition of Rs.95,57,000/- based on entries at page-1 of Annexure-1, CIT(A) observed that there was no date mentioned on the document and , therefore, stock could be of different date. Therefore, he held that the addition made was not correct and thus deleted the same. Aggrieved by the decision of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5.2 Before us, the ld. DR submitted that CIT(A) had omitted to consider the provisions of section 292C as per which any document found during the course of search has to be explained by the assessee to the satisfaction of AO and in the absence of satisfactory explanation the AO is duty bound to compute income based on such document. The stock had been found as on 30.6.1996 which is part of the block period and therefore, unless entries were explained satisfactorily, the AO could determine the undisclosed income under the provisions of Section 158B(b) and 158BB. Accordingly it was urged that the order of CIT(A) should be set aside. 5.3 We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding addition of Rs.56,59,503/- made by AO as unaccounted stock based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
