9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer - The CIT(A) committed an error in deleting the addition without considering the seized materials which were available on record – the matter remitted back to the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of seized material and the statement recorded during the course of search operation – Decided in favour of Revenue. - IT(SS)A No. 215/Coch/2005, CO 11/Coch/2007 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2013 - Shri N. R. S. Ganesan (JM) And Shri B. R. Baskaran (AM),JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri T. M. Sreedharan, Sr. counsel For the Respondent : Shri M. Anil Kumar ORDER Per N. R. S. Ganesan (JM) This appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A)-II, Cochin dated 28-09-2005. 2. This appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that the assessing officer has not used any material found during the course of search operation. According to the ld.DR, the assessing officer, in fact, placed reliance on all materials found during the course of search operation. Therefore, the observation made by the CIT(A) is not correct. 4. On the contrary, Shri T.M. Sreedharan, the ld.senior counsel submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm consisting of three partners. The business of the firm was started on 31-02-1995. The assessee slowly took up the business year by year. According to the ld.senior counsel, the assessing officer estimated the undisclosed income at Rs.9,64,580 by estimating the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record. Admittedly, there was a search operation at the residential premises of the assessee alongwith other restaurant and huge suppression of sales was found. In fact, the partners admitted during the course of search operation that there was suppression of receipts and one of the partners, Shri A.E. Narayanan appears to have admitted before the authorities that with the approval of all the partners, the books of account was prepared suppressing the actual receipts. A bare reading of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessing officer placed his reliance not only on the seized materials but also on the admissions made by the partners regarding suppression of sales. Therefore, the CIT(A) is not justified in saying that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objection was filed only to support the order of CIT(A). It is well settled principles of law that cross objection in support of the order of the CIT(A) is not maintainable. In other words, the order of the CIT(A) could be supported without filing the cross objection. Therefore, the cross objection is not maintainable. Even otherwise, we have already set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to his file for reconsideration. In view of the above, the cross objection becomes infructuous. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 29th May, 2013. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
