9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res approximately and ₹ 5.90 Crores from the total income of the assessee for two block periods. We are, therefore, convinced that there is lot of substance in the submission advanced by Mrs.Gutgutia that this finding is perverse. We, therefore, add the following question of law : “Whether the order directing the assessing officer to exclude the amount of ₹ 2,90,43,971 and ₹ 5,90,21,000 being the sales and fictitious income from the total income for the two block periods is perverse ?” Let the appeal be listed on 16th May, 2016 for hearing. - ITA 31 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 11-5-2016 - HON'BLE JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA AND HON'BLE JUSTICE ASHA ARORA For the Appellant : Mrs.A.G.Gutgutia,Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs report only. We do not find any such restriction in the order of the ITAT. The AO is therefore directed to be excluded the aforesaid amount of ₹ 2,90,43,971 and ₹ 5,90,21,000 being the sales and fictitious income from the total income for the two block periods. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the revenue has come up in appeal. The following question of law was formulated at the time of admission of the appeal : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the sales inflation figure from the assessee s income though the accounts were duly audited by the Auditor who never raised this point in the audit report and the management has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of the Tribunal that merely on the basis of the Special Auditor s Report the matter was to be considered by the assessing officer. If that were the intention there was no need for the learned Tribunal to direct the assessee by saying Needless to say that the assessee should be allowed ample opportunity to explain its case. He submitted that the intention of the Tribunal was that the assessee should get an opportunity independently of the Special Auditor s report to prove its case. Even assuming that Mr.Khaitan is correct, the question is bound to arise whether the assessee adduced such proof in support of its contention that the sale figures were inflated or that inflated profits were shown. Mr.Khaitan drew our attention to a l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Mr. Khaitan to us. According to Mr.Khaitan, summary of other part of Annexure-23 is also there in the Paper Book filed before the learned Tribunal in a summarised form. Even assuming that the year wise details of alleged sales inflation were given in Annexure-23 to the letter dated 8th January, 2003. Those details are bound to be a secondary evidence because they are based on Books of Accounts which were never disclosed. Those details have no evidenciary value. The learned Tribunal in its impugned order found as follows : The amounts of such inflation being ₹ 2,90,43,971 and ₹ 5,90,21,000 for the two block period has not been disputed by the AO. We have requested Mr.Khaitan to find out from the assessment order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
