9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 24th September, 2014. On 24th September, 2014 Mr. J .P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate wanted to rely on Paper Book used before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and accordingly, adjournment was granted with a direction to serve a copy thereof on Mr.Prithu Dhodhoria, learned advocate for the appellant. Today, at the very outset, a copy of the Paper Book has been filed in Court today which is kept on record and the matter has been heard. The revenue seeks formulation of the following questions : a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax, Appellate Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 43,71,253/- made by the Assessing Officer on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the seized documents at page 79 onwards of the paper book used before the Tribunal, and submitted the Assessing Officer had correctly found the difference between the audited balance-sheet and the seized documents to be the undisclosed income of the assessee at Rs. 47,78,416/-. The Revenue relied on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Ranchi: 2014 43 Taxman. Com 328(Jha) particularly paragraphs 18, 21 and 23 which are set out below: "18. Sub-section (4A) was inserted by the Taxing Laws (Amendment Act, 1975) with effect from 1.10.1975 to permit the presumption to be raised in the circumstances mentioned therein. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and the Tribunal upheld the additions, we do not find any reason warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed and the substantive questions are answered against the assessee." We find the assessee raised rebuttal against the presumption drawn by the Assessing Officer. Such rebuttal was accepted concurrently by both the Commissioner of Appeals as well as by the Tribunal. The Commissioner of Appeals and the Tribunal respectively held as under:- Re: Commissioner of Income Tax (A): "5.4 Regarding ground No.4, it is seen that the seized document purporting to be a balance sheet of M/s. Dutta Motors is not a genuine document. The balance sheet is a list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dues of Rs. 28.49 lakhs payable by the appellant to Dutta Automobiles. The entries for this purpose in the audited account of the appellant and the accounts of the Dutta Automobiles confirmed each other. But this entry is completely missing in the balance sheet. The seized balance sheet refers to the asset in the form of land and building. The audited balance sheet does not mention them. Now, balance sheet being a reflection of the entry in other ledger accounts, it should be possible from the seized balance sheet to go to the land and building account and from there to find out whether the appellant was in possession of any land or building. Similarly, the seized balance sheet refers to current assets in the form of stock in trade, cash a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,148/-, which is a higher figure in the audited balance-sheet. On the liabilities side, the sundry creditors shown, as per BDM/18, is Rs. 1,95,965.43 whereas as per the audited balance-sheet, the figure is Rs. 35,84,244.42, which is again a higher figure and this includes an amount of Rs. 28,48,604/- in respect of Dutta Automobiles, which are on the basis of contemporaneous document and evidence. There is also a loan from Union Bank, which is shown in the audited balance-sheet at Rs. 4,01,437/- but does not find place in BDM/18. All these figures, which have been extracted and explained earlier, clearly show that BDM/18 is clearly not a true and fair document for the purpose of making an addition much less a presumption of undisclosed incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
