9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.43/JDPR/2006, for the block period comprising of Assessment Years 1997-98 to 2002-03. 2. The relevant facts are that the search was carried out at residential and business premises of the assessee on 23.10.02 in which various incriminating documents were found, which inter alia indicated investment made by the assessee towards purchase of various assets, the total whereof was worked out by the assessee himself at Rs. 12,87,794/-. The assessee admitted the details of investment made as representing his undisclosed income during the block period. The assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 10,56,991/- as set off against the above undisclosed income being realisation from debtors falling outside block period. The Assessing Officer ("A.O.") rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of unaccounted lending of Rs. 75,000/- to Shri D.P.Agarwal and Rs. 11,250/- interest thereon was upheld by the CIT (Appeals). Other additions made and relief given are not referred to inasmuch as, no controversy is raised in respect thereof in the present appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) as aforesaid, the Revenue as also the assessee preferred appeals before the ITAT. The ITAT arrived at the finding that the calculation made by the CIT (Appeals) has no logic and opined that the ratio of unexplained debtors and creditors as at the beginning of the block period can be better determined by the ratio of disclosed debtors and creditors as per the books of account as on 31.3.96 being the beginning of the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary even on opening day of block period?" 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the A.O. has applied Expenditure-Investment Theory for arriving at the figures of undisclosed income and therefore, while applying the said theory, the A.O. must calculate the figures of increase in investment or assets during the block period and for this purpose, the A.O. is expected to give due credit or reduction of investment standing on the opening day of the block period and thus, the A.O. and the ITAT have seriously erred in not reducing the amount being opening debtors of Rs. 10,56,991/- as on 1.4.96. Learned counsel contended that the ITAT has erred in partly allowing the appeal preferred by the Revenue and setting aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermination by this court. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. Indisputably, the assessee has admitted undisclosed income for the block period at Rs. 12.87 lacs. The deduction was claimed by the assessee of Rs. 10,56,991/- against the above undisclosed income as set off being the realization from the debtors prior to block period. Obviously, the onus was on assessee to lead direct evidence to show that he had the said amount of undisclosed income available at the beginning of the block period. Apparently, the calculation made by the CIT (Appeals) while treating 25% of the total sundry debtors covered by unexplained sundry debtors prior to the block period thereby treating 75% of the debtors as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
