9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he course of the search, nor during the block assessment proceeding the Revenue found any evidence or material to support that the respondent was in possession of undisclosed stock valued at Rs.53,98,229/. Further, the finding of the authorities below is essentially a questions of fact. Therefore, the reframed question does not give rise to any substantial question of law. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 5752 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 27-11-2012 - J.P. Devadhar And M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. Appellant Rep. by : Mr. A.R. Malhotra Respondent Rep. by : Mr. P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Atul K. Jasani JUDGEMENT 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eet filed alongwith its return of income for the Assessment Year 1996-97 had declared a closing stock of Rs.21,42,191/-. In the circumstances, the difference between Rs.75,40,420/- and Rs.21,42,191/- was added as unaccounted closing stock for the Assessment Year 1996-97 in the block assessment order dated 28.12.1999. This was after bringing to tax the profit shown in the seized Balance Sheet at Rs. 28,59,171/- over and above Rs. 12,91,911/- disclosed in the regular return of income for the assessment year 1996-97. 5. In first appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that the Balance Sheet seized from the residence of the respondent's partner disclosed profit of Rs. 28,59,171/- for the period ending 31.03.1996. The aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence of the partner of the respondent. He further submits that during the assessment proceeding leading to the block assessment order dated 28.12.1999, the respondent had failed to explain the unaccounted stock of Rs.53,98,229/- found in the seized balance sheet for the Assessment Year 1996-97. Consequently, the same has to be added to the Income of the respondent and brought to tax in Block assessment for the period 01.04.1992 to 14.10.1997. 8. As against the above, Mr. Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel for the Respondent contends that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. According to Mr. Pardiwala, as there are concurrent finding of fact by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal holding that the profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
