9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information produced by the assessee before the Settlement Commission. This is not in dispute that the assessee provided this information before Settlement Commission about his additional income. Since, the assessee did not provide the detail about the year in which, this income was earned by the assessee, the A.O. made substantive addition in A.Y. 2005 - 06 being search year and made protective addition in 1999 - 2000 to 2004 - 05 on protective basis. It is noted by learned CIT (A) in Para 5.2 and 5.2.1 of his order that the learned AR of the assessee himself made an offer before him that if the addition is confirmed, the same be confirmed in A.Y. 2005 - 06 on substantive basis. Learned CIT (A) accepted the same and accordingly confirmed the addition on substantive basis in A.Y. 2005 - 06 being search year. We do not find any infirmity in the same. In view of peculiar facts of the present case where the addition is made and confirmed on the basis of offer before Settlement Commission, which is not specific, it has to be accepted that part of such income might have been earned in these earlier years and hence, in view of these peculiar facts, we grant telescoping and direct the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ext of section 158 BD and therefore this judgment does not come to aid of the revenue in a case u/s 153C. But when we gone through this judgment of Hon ble Allahabad High Court, we found that in that case also, the issue in dispute in that case was also regarding validity of assessment u/s 153C and not u/s 158BD. In fact, as question no. iii raised before Hon ble Allahabad High Court, reference was made to another judgment of Hon ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. vs. ACIT, 248 ITR 381 and in that case, the issue involved was requirement of recording satisfaction u/s 158BD and it was held that even recording of satisfaction in writing is not mandatory. 6. In the case of CIT vs. classic Enterprises, 358 ITR 465 (All.), It was held by Hon ble Allahabad High Court that since at this stage the proceedings are at the very initial state, the satisfaction is neither to be firm or conclusive. In the present case, learned CIT (A) has reproduced the satisfaction note of the A.O. in Para 4.2 of his order and as per the same, it is seen that it is noted by the A.O. that certain loose documents were found in course of search in Kadak Family Tea Group of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. This is not in dispute that the assessee provided this information before Settlement Commission about his additional income. Since, the assessee did not provide the detail about the year in which, this income was earned by the assessee, the A.O. made substantive addition in A.Y. 2005 - 06 being search year and made protective addition in 1999 - 2000 to 2004 - 05 on protective basis. It is noted by learned CIT (A) in Para 5.2 and 5.2.1 of his order that the learned AR of the assessee himself made an offer before him that if the addition is confirmed, the same be confirmed in A.Y. 2005 - 06 on substantive basis. Learned CIT (A) accepted the same and accordingly confirmed the addition on substantive basis in A.Y. 2005 - 06 being search year. We do not find any infirmity in the same. 10. A connected issue raised by the assessee as per ground No. 4 is this that if this addition in A.Y. 2005 - 06 is confirmed than also, the amount of such addition in this year should be reduced by the amount of other additions confirmed by CIT (A) in earlier years as per same order by allowing telescoping those additions confirmed in earlier years. Learned AR of the assessee submitted that since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in A.Y. 2005 - 06 in respect of offer before Settlement Commission. We have also allowed telescoping in that case. On same line, in this case also, all three issues are decided and net addition of ₹ 407,500 is confirmed in A.Y. 2005 - 06 on substantive basis being ₹ 420,000 Offer before Settlement Commission Less the addition of ₹ 10,000 in A.Y. 1999 - 2000 and ₹ 2,500 in A.Y. 2001 - 02 confirmed by Learned CIT (A). 14. In addition to this, there is one more issue in this case regarding confirming of addition of ₹ 8,000 in A.Y. 2005 - 06 by estimating the receipts. On this issue, we find no infirmity in the order of learned CIT (A). 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 16. Now, we take up two appeals in the case of Sri Rajjan Lal Neeraj Gupta (HUF) for A.Y. 2001 - 02 in ITA No. 505/Lkw/2013 and for A.Y. 2005 - 06 in ITA No. 506/Lkw/2013. It was agreed by both sides that the facts and dispute in this case are identical to the facts and dispute in the case of Sri Ram Singhare Yadav in ITA No. 503/Lkw/2013 and this appeal can be decided on same line. In that case, we have approved the validity of Notice u/s 153C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 02 is dismissed and for A.Y. 2005 - 06 is partly allowed. 22. Now, we take up two appeals in the case of Rajjan Lal Vinod Neeraj Gupta (HUF) for A.Y. 2001 - 02 in ITA No. 509/Lkw/2013 and for A.Y. 2005 - 06 in ITA No. 510/Lkw/2013. It was agreed by both sides that the facts and dispute in this case are identical to the facts and dispute in the case of Sri Ram Singhare Yadav in ITA No. 503/Lkw/2013 and this appeal can be decided on same line. In that case, we have approved the validity of Notice u/s 153C and have also upheld the addition on substantive basis in A.Y. 2005 - 06 in respect of offer before Settlement Commission. We have also allowed telescoping in that case. On same line, in this case also, all three issues are decided and net addition of ₹ 214,250 is confirmed in A.Y. 2005 - 06 on substantive basis being ₹ 422,500 offered before Settlement Commission Less the addition of ₹ 7,500 in A.Y. 1999 - 2000 and ₹ 200,750 in A.Y. 2001 - 02 confirmed by Learned CIT (A). Since telescoping of addition confirmed in A.Y. 2001 - 02 of ₹ 200,750 is allowed in A.Y. 2005 - 06, the appeal in A.Y. 2001 02 is dismissed. 23. In addition to this, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
