9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment on the business premises of the firm and also the residential premises of the partners. Certain documents were seized during the search. Based on the same, the assessing officer held that though the sale consideration for selling the factory is shown as ₹ 60 lakhs as per the sale deed, the firm has actually received a sum ₹ 82 lakhs. Accordingly the amount of ₹ 22 lakhs was seized in the office of the appellant firm has undisclosed income. Similarly, the assessing officer also made an addition of ₹ 4,40,653/- which amount was written off by the Karnataka Bank out of the loan amount of ₹ 64,40,453/- payable by the firm on the ground that the amount of ₹ 4,40,653/- has not been disclosed as a writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the assessment of the purchaser of the factory, the authorities in the case of the assessee cannot take different view than that of the order confirmed view than that of the order confirmed in the case of assessment of the purchaser. 6. In regard to the second question of law, Mr. Bhat contends that though a sum of ₹ 4,40,653/- has been written of the Karnataka Bank, the same could not have been included by the assessee for the relevant assessment year since the same was required to be shown only in the subsequent assessment year. Therefore, he contends all the authorities without considering the factual position have wrongly added a sum of ₹ 4,40,653 has income of the assessee for the relevant assessing year. He lastly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the same as unproved credits. In the circumstances he requests this court to dismiss the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion the questions No.1 and 2 are to be answered in favour of the assessee an question No. 3 has to be answered against the assessee for the following reasons: In regard to the question No. 1, if the department has accepted the version the purchaser of the factory that the factory was purchased at a cost of ₹ 60 lakhs and the order of assessment has become final, it is not open for the department to contend that the factory was sold by the seller at ₹ 82 lakhs and not at ₹ 60 lakhs. In other words, the revenue is not entitled to take a different stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o prohibition for the assessing officers to call upon the assessee to prove the existence of such credits and to confirm whether the credit shown in the entries are really in existence or not. When the Assessing officer has found that such entries are incorrect, when an opportunity was given to the assessee to prove such entries, when the assessee has failed to prove the same inspite of giving an opportunity for the Assessing officer, we are of the opinion that all authorities were justified in holding that the amount of ₹ 13,03,008/- as an unproved credit. In the circumstances, we have to answer the question No. 3 against the assessee. 11. In the result, we allow the appeal-in-part directing the Assessing officer to delete the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
