9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot justified in confirming the addition for the AY.s. concerned. For the AY. 1995-96 addition was made by the AO on substantive basis. During the course of hearing before us, the AR stated that considering the smallness of tax effect he would not like to press the issue. Therefore, we confirm the addition made by the AO for the AY.1995-96. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - IT APPEAL NO. 85 (GAU.) OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2015 - H.L. KARWA AND RAJENDRA, JJ. For The Appellant : Uttam Kumar Bprthakur,AR For The Respondent : C. Deepak Singh,DR ORDER Rajendra, Accountant Member - Challenging the order dated 17.03.2010 of the CIT-Guwahati, the Assessee has filed following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g action u/s 158BD, in respect of the appellant, despite the fact that the notice issuing authority himself was satisfied that the amounts, as appearing in the seized documents and not confirmed by the appellant as his receipt, were the 'undisclosed income' of the 'searched person' and accordingly assessed the same in its hands. (b) The legality and validity of the notice u/s 158DD read with S.158BC dated 30/03/2001 issued by the learned Income- tax Officer, Ward- 1 (1), Guwahati, to the appellant (consequent to the aforesaid illegal and invalid letter dated 13/02/2001 from the Assessing Officer of the 'searched person') seeking in effect to assess the 'undisclosed income' assessed in the hands of the ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39; nor confirmed by the appellant as his receipt, as the 'undisclosed income' in the hands of the 'searched person'. Therefore, there could not legally be any satisfaction u/s 158BD that such income belonged also to the appellant or that such income is also assessable in the hands of the appellant as his 'undisclosed income' u/s 158BC(c) of the Act. 6. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in upholding the assessment of 'undisclosed income' on 'protective basis for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95, 1996-97 and 1997-98, and confirming assessment of such amounts in the hands of the appellant, in spite of the fact that the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in law and in fact in sustaining an assessment order wherein gross professional receipts computed on the basis of seized materials were uncorroborated, arithmetically inaccurate and uncertain, and therefore, assessment of 'undisclosed income' on the basis of such unable figures were liable to be deleted. 10. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact in sustaining an assessment order wherein the 'undisclosed income' was assessed at ₹ 3,07,780/-. At the time of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) did not press ground of appeal no. l to 5 and 8 to 11. Therefore, all the grounds, except no. 6 and 7, stand dismissed as not pressed. 2. Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f accounts, the AO determined the income of the assessee for the block period at ₹ 3,07,780/-.He made addition on protective basis for AYs. 1993-94 (Rs. 80,251/-), 1994-95(Rs. 53,314/-),1996-97 (67,153/-), 1997-98 (85,298/-) and for the AY. 1996-96,an addition of ₹ 21,724/-was made on substantive basis. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), who confirmed the order of the AO and held that the AO justified in making protective assessment as the appeal was pending before the Tribunal at that time. 4. Before us, the AR submitted that the in the matter of DTHL substantive additions were made for the same amounts, that protective assessment made in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehind the assessee could not be used by the AO to make addition to the income of the assessee. Tribunal upheld the decision of the FAA of deleting the addition, amounting to ₹ 48.50 lakhs, made for FY. 1994-95 to 1998-99.For the FY.s. 1992-93 to 1993-94 the matter was restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The amount involved for those two FY.s. was ₹ 9.72 lakhs and ₹ 9.36 lakhs. From the above, it is clear that the substantive addition was made in the case of DTHL about the alleged payment to the professionals. In the case of the assessee protective assessment was made. As the matter was remitted back to the file of the AO by the Tribunal for two FY.s., so,we are,in the interest of justice, restori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
