TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing two issues: 2.1 First, the sustenance by the Tribunal of the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] with respect to deletion of the addition of a sum of ₹ 27,75,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act; 2.1 Second, the deletion of the addition of ₹ 34,89,970/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the claim on account of commission paid by the assessee. 3. In order to dispose of the present appeal the following brief facts require to be noted:- 3.1 The assessee who is an individual is engaged in the business of sale of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (in short DEPB?). On 04.04.2002 a search and seizure ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year after the date of search. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee had failed to file confirmations from parties who had advanced the loan, as also copies of the bank accounts of such parties from whom the assessee had received money through cheques. 3.2.2 Similarly, with respect to disallowance of deduction claimed on account of commission amounting to ₹ 34,89,970/- the Assessing Officer felt impelled to make the addition on account of the fact that the assessee had failed to file confirmations and copies of bank accounts of the recipients of the commission as required by her vide questionnaire dated 24.02.2004 4. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) revers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was asked to submit evidence which the assessee chose not to file and hence adverse inference had to be drawn against the assessee. In this regard the Assessing Officer referred to the questionnaire issued by her to the assessee. 5. In these circumstances, the CIT(A) after examining the findings returned by the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the genuineness of the credits/ loan amounting to ₹ 27,75,000/- which were disclosed in the regular books of accounts could not have been examined by taking resort to the block assessment provisions by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 68 of the Act in the block assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) thus concluded that the addition of ₹ 27,75,000/- made under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the findings of the CIT(A) were neither erroneous nor perverse and thus had to be sustained. 6.1 Similarly, as regards the disallowance of commission the Tribunal noted that the addition on account of commission had been deleted on the ground that the seized document, which formed the basis of the addition was a print out of the regular books of accounts and the entry pertaining to the same had been recorded in the regular books of accounts. In view of this finding as also the fact that the Revenue had not been able to produce any evidence to demonstrate that the findings of the CIT(A) were erroneous, it sustained the deletion of addition of ₹ 34,89,970/- made by the CIT(A). 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut of regular books of accounts. 7.3 At this stage, it would be important to note the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs Ravi Kant Jain; (2001) 250 ITR 141 to the effect that the special procedure prescribed in Chapter XIVB of Act is applicable to undisclosed income which is detected as result of search?. The provisions of Chapter XIVB of the Act are not designed to substitute a regular assessment. The observations of the Division Bench being apposite are extracted hereinbelow:- The special procedure of Chapter XIV-B is intended to provide a mode of assessment of undisclosed income, which has been detected as a result of search. As the statutory provisions go to show, it is not intended to be a substitu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|