9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 1-4-1991 to 27-4-2001. 2. The respondent/assessee is a Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of rectified spirit. Search was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 27-04-2001 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'). During the course of search, the evidences with regard to unaccounted sale of rectified spirit and other incriminating documents were seized. On the basis of the said documents, notice under Section 158 BC of the Act was issued to the assessee directing him to file the return of income for the block period from 1-4-1991 to 27-4-2001 in a prescribed form. 3. In pursuance of the notice, the assessee filed the return of income for the block period on 4-3-2002 declaring the undis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in part by its order dated 8-9-2006 and held that the miscellaneous receipts represented the income and such income is to be reduced from undisclosed income determined on unaccounted sale of rectified spirit. The appellant/ revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, has preferred this appeal. 4. The present appeal was admitted for considering the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that miscellaneous receipts of Rs.31,95,000/- discovered in the course of search cannot be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee during the block period as the same should be presumed as unaccounted sale of rectified spirit even though these unaccounted sales had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in (2012) 340 ITR 193 (J.P.NARAYANASWAMY v/s DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustainable and sought for allowing the appeal. 6. On the other hand, Sri.K.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee argued in support of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and contended that the authorities below without considering the contentions raised by the assessee refused to deduct a sum of Rs.31,95,000/- towards miscellaneous receipts out of the undisclosed income of Rs.49,47,000/-. The Appellate Tribunal aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
