9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the lower Authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner. Seized material corroborates the income fixed under the head Pooja - Whether seized material does not disclose such income from Pooja ?- HELD THAT:- We have held that the same does not give rise to any substantial question of law as it is a matter of estimate based on the relevant material seized during the course of search and the statement recorded of the Assessee u/s. 132[4] of the Act as to what was the income of the Assessee who was working as Priest during the relevant period. Unexplained expenditure - HELD THAT:- Margins are not recorded in the books of accounts therefore those were considered by the Assessing Officer as payment out of books. As it is apparent fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooja ? III. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in its conclusion that the noting in the dairy represents payment in lakhs and the sum of ₹ 19 lakhs is an unexplained expenditure assessable in the year 2007-08? 2.As far as these issues are concerned, we have already dismissed the connected Appeal of the Assessee, namely, I.T.A. No.36/2017 in the case of 'Gopal. V. Pandit v. The Commissioner of Income Tax Another in which as regards first question, we have held that in the absence of specific provision in Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ['Act' for short] the present Authority, namely, Joint Commissioner is not expected to give an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee before giving an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Authorities who have concurrent powers of assessment as are available with the Assessing Authority, have admittedly heard the Assessee on the merits of the case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law in this regard can be said to be arising on the basis of the office guidelines which are for internal purposes of the Department. They are not even statutory instructions issued u/s. 119 of the Act, which if beneficial to Assessee have been held to be binding on the Authorities of the Department. The Assessee has also not been able to point out any prejudice caused to him on account of approving Authority not giving him an opportunity of hearing. 3.Even as far as second question raised before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized document relating to Pooja income of ₹ 35 lakhs, ₹ 20 lakhs and ₹ 20 lakhs for the Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2008-09 respectively. We find that there is no ambiguity in the statement of assessee regarding the Pooja income which has been clearly corroborated by the seized material. Thus when there is a sufficient evidence seized material which corroborates the statement of the assessee recorded under Section 132(4) on 23.2.2009 then the subsequent retraction of the statement by the assessee without any corroborating evidence cannot be accepted as the assessee has not explained the statement and how the income shown in the seized material is not correct. Therefore mere retraction of statement without explaining circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has paid the alleged amount of ₹ 58 lakhs to Mr. Hirenkumar Patel. He had submitted that the amounts noted down in the margins of the dairy entry assessee right from the beginning has explained this before the Assessing Officer. He has not paid the alleged amount of ₹ 58 lakhs as stated by the Assessing Officer what the payments were made, the same were recorded in the books of account. The learned Authorised Representative has submitted that the payments made during the year under consideration were only ₹ 82.50 lakhs and the same is recorded in the books of account. There is no material on record to say that the assessee has taken the said sum of ₹ 58 lakhs from Mr. Hirenkumar Patel. The learned Authorised Repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 19 lakhs. The limited controversy before us is whether the abbreviated or coded amounts written in the margins of the diary at page 75 of the seized material represents the amounts in lakhs or in thousands. The Assessing Officer has considered these amounts as payments made by the assessee in lakhs and therefore calculated the total payment made by the assessee out of books of ₹ 58 lakhs. For ready reference we reproduce the entries as well as the numbers written in 04.08.2006 Ch. No.055331 of the Dhanalakshmi Bank and M.G. Road. 16,65,000 1,00,000 17,65 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
