9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found in the course of search was based on the assessment of facts by the Tribunal and no substantial question of law as such arose from the order of the Tribunal for decision in the appeal. Regarding surcharge under the proviso to section 113 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has held that the proviso to section 113 under which the surcharge is levied was inserted by the Finance Act, 2002, with effect from June 1, 2002, and since the search took place on November 30, 2001, i.e., before introduction of the proviso to section 113 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had rightly deducted the surcharge levied by the Assessing Officer. It is not in dispute that the search took place on November 30, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the respondent and we find that the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 30,59,822 on account of variation in stock found in the premises of the respondent in the course of search. In appeal filed by the-respondent, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that in the business premises of the respondent, stocks of other sister concerns of the respondent, namely, M/s. Narmada Ginning and Pressing Factory, M/s. Vivek Kumar Gopaldas, M/s. Vinayak Ginning Factory and M/s Vishwanath Flour Industries, were also kept and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the combined stock of the respondent as well as of its sister concerns available in the premises of the respondent should have been taken into consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned, the difference in stock was on account of 256 quintals which was loaded in the trucks and 506.15 quintals which was received from Radha Ginning Factory, Harsood and this was evident from the sale bills and transport vouchers of cotton bales, affidavit, account and certificate of Radha Ginning Factory and other documents in respect of the sale of cotton bales which were in the paper book filed before the Tribunal. It is, thus, clear that on the materials available before it, the Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 4,96,021 in the hands of the respondent on account of variation of stock as sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified. In our considered opinion, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
