9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly in the morning 8-00 AM. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) should have held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in charging of interest u/s 234B of the act in respect on additional income, for want of seized material/ statement in time. The assessee vehemently denies its liability to pay such interest. 3. The respondent craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of cross objections either before or during the course of hearing of the same. 3. It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. before us that the cross objection filed by the assessee is not pressed and accordingly all the grounds raised by the assessee in the C.O. are rejected as not pressed. 4. In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 5. Now, we take up the appeal of the revenue. The revised grounds raised by the revenue are as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case In deleting the addition of ₹ 1 .80 crores made on the basis of admission made by managing partner of the assessee in his statement recorded u/s 132(4). which was on the basis of and after verification of the seize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e disclosure made during this search/survey. During the course of the search and survey as was being explained/ informed by the authorised officer regarding loose papers found from various premises, statement regarding disclosure was taken. The A.O. has, however, stated that the question No. 13 and 14 which are reproduced as under shows the disclosure made by the appellant: Q.13. During the search/survey proceedings at your place, at your office, and search/survey proceedings at Piyush Patel, Nilesh Jada, Jayram Khokhariya etc. evidences of unaccounted income earned by the group has been found. All the evidences you have seen and understood. What you have to say regarding this unaccounted income and investment? A. 13 I have seen and understood evidences of unaccounted income and investment. I have seen evidences and understood properly all the evidences of all the premises. After understanding all the evidences I feel that I have earned unaccounted income and has made unaccounted investments out of that. All this income and investment is made in name of my self, my brothers and my other family members. I will produce detailed break up next week. Majority of the inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent was admitted after going through the evidences. He has referred to the following cases: i) Hiralal Maganlal Co. IT(S S) Appeal No.117, Mumbai dated 20-9-2004 ii) Kantilal Prabhudas Pate! IT(S S) Appeal No. 7S 80 of 2002 (Indore) With the above discussion he has made the addition of ₹ 1,80,00,000/- to the returned income. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and he decided the issue in favour of the assessee and now, the revenue is in appeal before us. 8. It was submitted by Ld. D.R. that the working of the assessee regarding the income disclosed in the return of income of ₹ 720 lacs is appearing on page 16 of the paper book. It is submitted by him that these details of income disclosed in the return of income do not explain the difference between amount disclosed in the course of search and the amount disclosed in the return of income and hence, merely on the basis of the submission of the assessee and the working submitted by the assessee, it cannot be said that the amount disclosed by the assessee in the return of income is sufficient to cover the disclosure made by the assessee in the course of search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly ₹ 7.20 crores was unaccounted income and investment and, therefore, the disclosure in the return of income was made to this extent. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (a) 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs CIT (b) 327 ITR 497 (Chhattisgarh) ITO Vs Vijay Kumar Kesar (c) ACIT Vs Vrujbhumi Cotton Industries in I.T.A.No. 2210 and 2215/Ahd/2008 order dated 22.07.2011 (copy filed). 10. In the rejoinder, it was submitted by the Ld. D.R. that the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of Vrujbhumi Cotton Industries (supra) cited by the Ld. A.R. is in respect of survey proceedings and not in search proceedings. Regarding the judgement of Hon ble Gujarat High court and other High courts, it was submitted that these judgments are not relevant in the present case because the facts are different. 11. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the judgements cited by the Ld. A.R. This issue was decided by Ld. CIT(A) a per para 3.2 of his order which is reproduced below for the sake of ready reference: I have considered the assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 112 ITD 179, [Ahmedabad Tribunal], (3) ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of AC1T vs Sushiladevi Agrawal 49 TTJ 663, (4) C1T vs K. Bhuvanendran Others 303 1TR 235 (Madras High Court) Kailashben Manharlal Choksi 174 Taxman 44 (Guj. High Court), and .the spirit of circular dated 10-3-2003 referred to by the appellant, I am of the view the A.O. was not justified in making the addition for the differential amount of ₹ 1,80.00,000/-, which represents difference between the disclosure of ₹ 9 crores recorded in the statement of Savjibhai and additional income of ₹ 7.20 crores as shown in tire return of income. Accordingly the addition made is deleted. 12. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue after considering and following various tribunal decisions and judgements of various Hon ble High Courts including the judgement of Hon ble Gujarat High court rendered in the case of Manharlal Choksi (supra). He also considered the Board s Circular dated 10.03.2003 and thereafter, it was decided by him that the addition made by the A.O. is not justified. When we examined the assessment order, we find that the addition was made by the A.O. merely on the basis that there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
