9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was worthy of income to be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee as the assessee had returned income of Rs.22,91,690/- u/s 139(1) when the survey took place on 4th March, 2008 and was part of income to be returned. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the major relief having been granted on the very inadmissible expenses should be completely deleted, has no legs to stand on. No infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Undisclosed cash transactions on Hulavati account - CIT(A) granted relief of Rs.39,00,207/- - Held that:- It was the computation of income on the basis of the said dumb documents whether had found place in the returned income has not been clarified either by the AO or the assessee appellant before us requires ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the additions as per the grounds raised as follows :- ITA No.168/KOl/2012 (by the assessee):- "1. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in holding that there was illegality in the Survey carried out under section 133A at the appellant's factory on a weekly holiday. 2. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the addition to the tune of Rs.28,57,775/- computed arbitrarily and without any lawful basis, as undisclosed income and the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in treating the same as income merely on inadmissible evidence being the basis of loose/rough notings bearing identification No.SS-3 to SS-5 found during S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim of the appellant for adjustment in respect of Rs.2,53,350 being the sale proceeds of old engine against the peak worked out in respect of said Hulayati account." ITA No.219/Kol/2012 (by the Revenue ): The Revenue is in appeal raising the following grounds which figures have been corrected read as under :- "1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in deleting the addition of Rs.1,09,62,321/- sustained by CIT(A) (-) 28,57,775 = Rs.81,04,546. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in deleting the addition of Rs.42,11,533 4211535 (-) 3,11,328 = 39,00,207/- 3. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in deleting the addition of Rs.1,19,94,477/-. 4. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee is in respect to conducting of survey operation in the business premises of the assessee on a particular day and bringing on record extracting material of additions to the extent that double taxation of the same income has not been ruled out, was considered by the ld. CIT(A) at length. We are of the considered view that the assessee appellant had sufficient time to explain the documents even if it has been considered as dumb documents when the AO took cognizance of the audited financial statements at the time of computing income during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. At the time of appellate stage before the ld. CIT(A) lengthy submissions were made which was considered on the basis of the compari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 132(4) of the Act and the assessment has not been made u/s 153A of the Act concluding that all the facts and circumstances of bringing to tax part sustenance of the additions made by the AO emanate from the books of the assessee only. With respect to the impounded documents the ld. CIT(A) verified the nature of the addition of Rs.1,09,62,321/- after making various observations and findings by way of the Remand Report that the assessee tried to correlate funds of the income already embedded partly sustained additions at Rs.28,57,775/- by granting relief of Rs.81,04,546/- we are of the considered view that the assessee appellant himself was not able to explain the nature of such income so computed when part of it was explained as correct was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther deliberation. The said income therefore stands as returned but for erroneous calculation computed correctly is upheld as part deleted and sustained by the CIT(A) is confirmed. Grounds raised by the rival parties on this are dismissed. 6. In respect of the next ground being deletion of addition of Rs.1.20 crores and Rs.5,81,732/- on account of unexplained investment provided the computation at 4.85%, the ld. CIT(A) after deliberation and arithmetical computation the stock valuation whether lengthwise or breadth wise granted relief of Rs.1.26 crores does not require any further deliberation as no further controverting material has been brought on record by the rival parties hereto. The same is upheld being percentage estimation on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
