9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after, proceedings for determination of the undisclosed income for the period 1st April, 1996 to 19th Sept., 2002 were initiated. These proceedings were completed on 29th Sept., 2004, determining the undisclosed income at ₹ 2,32,84,835. Aggrieved by this order, appeal was filed before the CIT(A)-III, New Delhi. This appeal, bearing No. 227/2004-05, was disposed of on 31st March, 2005. In this order, undisclosed incomes of three individuals, Shri Gurdeep Singh, Shri Rajinder Singh and Shri Trilok Singh and two companies, R.T. Motors Spares (P) Ltd. and Rajdeep Vehicle Spares (P) Ltd., were held to be assessable in the hands of the Assessee for various reasons. In view of the factors that the rate of tax leviable on undisclosed income is same for all persons, and the associates of the Assessee preferred to contest the matter in a consolidated manner, the Assessee agreed for clubbing the undisclosed income of the aforesaid associates, assessed by the AO on a protective basis, in his own hands. With these remarks, the learned Counsel proceeded to discuss various grounds. 4. Ground No. 1 is that the learned CIT(A) reduced the rate of commission earned by the Assessee in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted by the AO to estimate commission income at 4 per cent in respect of accommodation-entry business. The learned CIT(A) found substance in this argument as it was borne out from facts on record that Shri Jagpreet Singh never stated that he was charging 4 per cent commission. It was further mentioned that it is a matter of common knowledge that accommodation bills are issued on consideration ranging between 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent of the bill amount. In these circumstances, it was held that the undisclosed income of the Assessee should be assessed at 0.75 per cent of the bill amount, being the mean of the aforesaid range of rate of profit. 4.3. Coming to the arguments, it was submitted that Shri Jagpreet Singh had never stated that the commission income from accommodation-entry business was about 4 per cent of the turnover. Our attention was drawn to p. 33 of the paper book. In answer to question No. 14, it was deposed that the bill book was given to him by Shri Sanjay, proprietor of Paras Enterprises and Davender of Skyline Metals (P) Ltd. The bills were prepared by him and pertained to his friends. The traders have the goods but they take the bills from us and, therefore, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he income for the period 1st April, 1996 to 31st March, 2003. 4.6. It was also argued that in absence of any search material found regarding the business of accommodation-entries, no undisclosed income could be determined in respect thereof. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ravi Kant Jain (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 566 : (2001) 250 ITR 141 (Del), in which it was held that in the case at hand, undisclosed income is not on the basis of any search material but on the basis of change of opinion, particularly on the basis of report of the special auditors, who had given a different colour to the existing facts which stood assessed by the IT authorities in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal was justified in its view that the undisclosed income was not determined on the basis of any search material. The inevitable conclusion is that no substantial question of law arose from the finding of the Tribunal. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. (2006) 204 CTR (Del) 48 : (2006) 285 ITR 295 (Del). The facts of the case are that the Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dr. M.K.E. Menon (2001) 168 CTR (Bom) 184 : (2001) 248 ITR 310 (Bom). In that case, it was found in the course of search that fees recorded in the registration book was more than the fees recorded in the cash book. The Assessee offered undisclosed income of ₹ 75.60 lakhs for taxation. The AO computed the undisclosed income at ₹ 2.33 crores. It was held that the undisclosed income could not be estimated on an arbitrary basis and the Tribunal was right in concluding that the AO had adopted an arbitrary method in estimating the undisclosed income. In this case, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali 1973 CTR (SC) 317 : (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) was also referred to. 4.8. It was submitted that the statements furnished by the associated persons were reliable and such statements formed the basis that income of natural persons and corporate entities for taxation in the hands of the Assessee. Therefore, such inclusion was justified and even the Assessee has not objected to it before the Tribunal. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (supra), it was contended that the inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs and deposit slips of R.T. Motors (P) Ltd. were found from the residence of the Assessee. The case of the learned Counsel is that all these papers pertain to cheque and draft-discounting. However, the case of the learned Departmental Representative is that this could only be clarified in the course of assessment proceedings. We are of the view that the seizure of these and other documents and also statements of associated persons fairly lead to the conclusion that the Assessee was carrying on the business of cheque and draft-discounting, which was not hitherto disclosed to the Revenue. However, the evidence does not contain any material to show that the Assessee was carrying on accommodation-entry business in a clandestine manner. In the course of hearing, the Bench specifically requested the learned Departmental Representative to show any material found in the course of search. He was not able to show any such material. However, he relied on the orders of lower authorities for this purpose. In the circumstance, it is held that the search did not yield any incriminating material. Having come to the conclusion that the seized material did not lead to discovery of any incriminating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is contention that the AO had rightly taken the income at 4 per cent of the turnover by relying on the statement of Shri Jagpreet Singh, an associate of the Assessee who was doing the same business. As against the aforesaid, the case of the learned Counsel is that the AO misread the statement of Shri Jagpreet Singh, as it was not in relation to accommodation-entry business but draft-discounting business. We have considered this matter carefully. The relevant portion of the statement of Shri Jagpreet Singh is contained on p. 33, which can be translated to the effect that the traders have the goods but they take the bill from us. We charge 4 per cent of the bill amount against "C" Form. Thus, we do hot make any profit in such transactions. The statement regarding absence of profit was possibly made on account of the fact that Central sales-tax is leviable @ 4 per cent when inter-State sales are made against "C" Form. Therefore, it can be fairly concluded from the aforesaid statement that there is hardly any profit because the excess amount of 4 per cent gets spent by way of the Central sales-tax payable by the dealer. In this situation, we are unable to agree with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been furnished on p. 13 of the assessment order. On the basis of the statement of Shri Jagpreet Singh, the income from this business was computed for various years @ 0.5 per cent of the amount involved in drafts and the aggregate of undisclosed income on this basis for various years amounted to ₹ 26,58,263. The details regarding the volume of business and undisclosed income are reproduced overleaf for ready reference: Year-wise summary of transactions related to draft-discounting 2Sl. No. F.Y. Personal Preet Traders Ekta Enterprises G.T. Motors R.S. Enterprises R.T. Motors Rajdeep Motor (i) 1996-97 9,46,584 35,61,756 10,85,30,380 4,60,37,517 Nil Nil Nil (ii) 1997-98 7,22,614 56,38,196 6,34,36,430 2,93,12,532 Nil Nil Nil (iii) 1998-99 7,17,427 64,95,862 3,57,51,164 1,26,72,455 Nil Nil Nil (iv) 1999-2000 8,51,349 20,31,670 2,31,31,627 71,48,186 Nil Nil Nil (v) 2000-01 4,69,326 11,45,850 1,77,44,971 45,45,117 83,41,122 7,748 40,45,757 (vi) 2001-02 56,047 30,04,500 2,45,54,822 45,11,841 5,98,46,279 1,78,46,699 2,12,12,506 vii) 2002-03 Nil Nil 18,29,496 31,10,969 49,54,200 55,34,653 19,05,000 Total 37,63 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the Assessee has made out a fairly good case that the Assessee's case cannot be compared with other cases for the reason that the Assessee was engaged purely in bank draft-discounting activity and, therefore, in order to increase his profits, he was charging lower commission. It is also clear that gross commission cannot be brought to tax as what is liable to be taxed under Chapter XIV-B is the income which has not been disclosed or which would not be disclosed for the purposes of the Act. There is a vital difference between gross receipts and income which has to be recognized in this case also. The Assessee had deposed during the course of search that he was charging commission @ ₹ 25 per ₹ 10,000. This statement has to be believed in absence of any evidence to the contrary. No evidence to the contrary has been furnished in the case of the Assessee. Therefore, it is clear that by citing other instances without proving that those Assessees were similarly situated with the Assessee, commission of more than ₹ 25 per ₹ 10,000 cannot be taken in the hands of the Assessee. 3.1. Coming to the deduction of expenses, no argument had been made by the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to earn the amount invested in the properties and by no stretch of imagination she could be treated with having earned the income in the relevant year or even in a decade or more. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned that the Tribunal had given a clear finding that discretion vested in the lower authorities was not properly exercised having regard to the facts of the case. Thus, the Court agreed with the view of the Tribunal and it did not find any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. On the basis of this case, it was made out that since no worthwhile asset was found from the Assessee, he could not have earned income as computed by the learned CIT(A). It was also submitted that the income declared by the Assessee in asst. yr. 2003-04 was accepted as it is in an assessment made Under Section 143(3) albeit after including the incomes of S/Shri Rajinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Trilok Singh, as seen from pp. 38 to 40 of the paper book. The income in the case of Shri Inderbeer Singh Kohli was also accepted as it is for asst. yr. 2003-04, who declared the income at 0.08 per cent, as seen from p. 54 of the paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the learned Counsel in this case. It is no doubt true that the incomes of three natural persons and two corporate entities have been included in the income of the Assessee. Thus, some expenditure would have been incurred in respect of the three natural persons. However, a part of such expenditure is also relatable to accommodation-entry business and the whole of the expenditure cannot be attributed to draft-discounting business. Therefore, we are of the view that the findings in the case of Shri Inderbeer Singh (supra) cannot be applied mechanically to the facts of this case. The facts of this case are also distinguishable from the facts of the case of Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (supra). That was a case of young lady, who submitted that the agricultural lands were acquired by way of a bequest. This explanation was found to be unsubstantiated. However, other evidences existed on record to show that she could not have earned the income purportedly invested in purchase of agricultural land in the year under question or even in a decade. Such is not the case here. It is a matter of fact on record that the Assessee has been carrying on accommodation-entry and cheque/draft-discounting bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds pp. 131 to 137 of the paper book, being the documents under examination leading to the additions. Page 131 gives the narration of total Peti at 51 and interest for 10 months for the period 15th Oct., 1998 to 15th Aug., 1999 at 20.30, leading the total to 71.30. Page 132 gives the break-up of 51 Peties at 24, 20 and 7. The break-up of 24 Peti against the name of D.K. is given as 10 Peti, 10 Peti and 4 Peti, making the total at 24. Against this break-up of 24, there are three narrations of 5, 6 and 6 with a figure of 134 below this further break-up. There is another narration of 27 Peti with 3-81, below 134 and 381, there is a figure of 215. Page 133 contains the break-up of 51 Peti as 20, 10, 10, 4 and 7. Against these figures, 3, 5, 6, 6 and 3 are mentioned. Against these figures 600, 600, 500, 240, 210 have been mentioned, which have been totaled to 2150. Page 134 gives certain calculation about sales-tax starting with balance of 51,000 on 15th Oct., 1998. There is an addition of 8,600 on 15th Oct., 1998 taking the total to 59,600. There is a deduction of 500 on 15th Dec, 1998 reducing the total to 59,100. There is an addition of 2,150 on 15th March, 1999 taking the total to 61 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leave no doubt that these entries pertain to loan transactions and this further stands corroborated by the statement of Shri D.K. Goyal. Before the AO, it was submitted that these transactions relate to Shri Sohan Lal with Devender Kumar Goyal, Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Singh Sachdeva. It was further submitted before the AO that the Assessee acted as a mediator to introduce these three persons to Shri Sohan Lal. However, Shri Devender Kumar Goyal never stated that these transactions were with Shri Sohan Lal. Also, the AO had asked the Assessee to produce these three persons before him which was never done. In view of the reasons given by the AO for making this addition, I am satisfied that this is justified. The addition made by him is upheld. The ground of appeal is dismissed. 7.2. It was argued that these transactions relate to loan held by Shri Sohan Lal with these three persons and the Assessee had acted only as mediator, for which he got commission @ 1 per cent of the value of the transaction. It was further argued that the statement of Shri D.K. Goyal, that he had taken interest-bearing loan from the Assessee and paid the amount by way of cash and drafts, is unbelievable. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anager of the bank through which the money was remitted, no adverse inference could be drawn against the Assessee as the burden of proof was on the Department. 7.3. It was further argued that there were contradictions in the statement of Shri D.K. Goyal which rendered it to be unreliable. In this connection, our attention was drawn to the statement placed in the paper book on pp. 138 to 153. It was inter alia deposed that the business of M/s Ispat Centre, M/s AKG Metals (P) Ltd. and M/s Skylink Metals (P) Ltd. was dealing in iron and steel. These concerns were also engaged in discounting business, the receipts from which were credited in the respective bank accounts. It was further deposed that he knew the Assessee since the year 1985 as he had business relations with him. He used to take loans for the business with interest at 2 per cent to 3 per cent per month for which blank cheques, duly signed by him, drawn on State Bank of Mysore and SBI were handed over. At a particular point of time, the loan taken by him from the Assessee was ₹ 30 lakhs, which was taken in cash as also by way of drafts. He identified the signed and blank cheques pledged with the Assessee, placed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7.5. Our attention was also drawn to the statement of Shri Sohan Lal recorded on 11th Oct., 2002, placed in the paper book on pp. 148 to 153. He had inter alia deposed that he knew the Assessee but he had never taken or given any loan to him. It was further deposed, when confronted with the statement of the Assessee, that he had not sold any stamping to the Assessee nor he received ₹ 25,000 from him. The case of the learned Counsel was that the seized papers were not shown to him and, therefore, the purpose of recording his statement is not clear. Opportunity of cross-examination was also not allowed in this case. Therefore, it was argued that this statement cannot be relied upon. 7.6. The learned Counsel again referred to pp. 40 to 44 of Annex. A-1, being pp. 132 to 136 of the paper book and submitted that none of these papers contains any date. However, he did not make a mention of p. 39, which contains the calculation of interest on 51 Peti for the period 15th Oct., 1998 to 15th Aug., 1999 at 20.30. His case was that in absence of any date, these documents were of no consequence for determining undisclosed income as the period of income cannot be ascertained. 7.7. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k were in respect of fan stampings, undertaken with Shri Sohan Lal Dua. It was argued that in view of this statement, earlier statement given on 19th Sept., 2000 became infructuous. Reliance was also placed on the order of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. Asstt. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ (Del)(TM) 169 : (2003) 263 ITR 75 (AT)(TM). In that case, certain transactions were found to be noted on the slip of paper discovered in the course of search of a third person. There was no other evidence to prove the genuineness of the noting. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that no addition could be made on the basis of these entries in computing undisclosed income Under Section 158BD of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Patna Bench of the Tribunal in the case of D.N. Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CIT (1999) 65 TTJ (Pat)(TM) 504 : (2000) 241 ITR 85 (AT)(TM). In that case, evidence was found from one of the purchasers of a flat from a builder regarding non-payment of "on-money". The Tribunal held that this evidence was not sufficient for raising a presumption that similar amounts were received in respect of sale of other flats in spite of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of ₹ 51 lakhs and interest of ₹ 20.30 lakhs. This becomes clear from p. 136 on which the narration is made in actuals. In the course of hearing before us, the learned Counsel fairly conceded that the word "Peti", when used in common parlance in relation to money advanced or received on interest, means one lakh rupees. In the course of search, it was inter alia deposed that these transactions pertain to D.K., M. Singh and K. Singh, but he did not remember how could the transaction of interest could be related to the stampings. However, the fact that the transactions relate to loan and interest become clear from answer to question No. 4 put to the Assessee in the course of recording of statement on oath on 21st Jan., 2003, when after looking at page No. 131, it was deposed that 51 Peti means ₹ 51 lakhs, which were given on loan by him, on which interest for the period 15th Oct., 1998 to 15th Aug., 1999 amounted to ₹ 20.30 lakhs, taking the total to ₹ 71.30 lakhs. Further, after looking at page No. 132, it was deposed that ₹ 24 lakhs were given on loan to D.K. Further details of this lending are also mentioned on that very page, bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The Assessee has not furnished till date the name and addresses of all the persons on whose behalf he acted as mediator. In the light of these facts, we are of the view that the statement given at the time of search and recorded Under Section 131 on 28th Jan., 2003 without being influenced by anyone else, represents better pieces of evidences than the affidavit filed two years of the search when he could have been influenced by the advise of others, including legal advisors. The fact that in the latter portion of the statement, he revised his stand shows that there was no undue influence etc. on him. 8.1. This brings us to the question of the veracity of the contents of these documents. Section 132(4A) provides that where any books of account, other documents etc. are found in possession or control of any person in the course of search, it may be presumed that-(i) such books of account, other documents etc. belong to him; (ii) the contents of such books of account and other documents are true, and (iii) the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents, which are purportedly in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umar alone, which is not tested, cannot form the basis of addition. The Assessee also objected to reliance being placed on the statement of Shri Sohan Lal and the purport of his statement was stated to be unclear. His statement was also not tested and, therefore, this statement also does not stand on any different footing from the statement of Shri Devender Kumar Goyal. The learned Counsel also took the stand that the Assessee did not have capacity to advance substantial loans as can be seen from the assets found in his possession at the time of search and for this purpose reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (supra). The facts of that case are completely different as she was a young lady and could not have earned the income even in a decade. On the other hand, the Assessee has been carrying on the business of providing accommodation-entries and cheque discounting, which has been admitted in the course of hearing before us. Admittedly, the Assessee is also carrying on the business of arranging loans for various persons. Thus, he had sources of income from which loans could be advanced to various persons. Therefore, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier, which does not leave any scope for doubt that the learned CIT(A) concurred with the AO that the amounts were lent on interest by the Assessee. 8.3. This brings us to the question-whether, the whole or any part of the loans and interest amount is taxable in the hands of the Assessee ? The case of the learned Counsel is that the loose papers cannot be equated with the books of account and, therefore, they cannot be relied upon for making the assessment. We may mention here that Section 132(4A) deals not only with books of account but also with other documents found in the course of search. These documents were found from the residence of the Assessee and, thus, not only they can be used in assessment but also an initial presumption arises that their contents are correct. In such a situation, the onus is on the Assessee to satisfactorily explain the contents of the documents. This also follows from the general law that a person in special knowledge of certain facts, has to explain the facts. Thus, we will have to see the explanation of the Assessee in regard to these documents. 8.4. We may start with p. 137 of the paper book, which contains a narration of 42 Peties and 25 thous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese circumstances, we are of the view that it would be just and fair to conclude that the Assessee took the loan, which was advanced to others. Therefore, it is held that no amount can be taxed in the hands of the Assessee on the basis of this account. 8.5. Coming to the transactions with Shri D.K. Goyal, p. 136 of the paper book shows transaction of ₹ 24 lakhs @ 3 per cent, resulting in interest of ₹ 7,20,000. This transaction is corroborated by p. 132 which shows three transactions with D.K. of ₹ 10 lakhs, ₹ 10 lakhs and ₹ 4 lakhs. Interest in respect of these and other amounts to M. Singh and K. Singh has been worked out on p. 131 for the period 15th Oct., 1998 to 15th Aug., 1999. In the statement recorded in the course of search, it was stated that this pertains to Shri D.K. Goyal and the account has been written in the handwriting of the Assessee. However, the Assessee stated that he does not know the addresses of Shri D.K. Goyal, M. Singh and K. Singh. Subsequently, another statement was recorded on oath in which it was deposed that p. 131 contains transactions of ₹ 51 lakhs on which interest of ₹ 21.30 lakhs was charged. Detailed e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of receipts etc. becomes an irrelevant consideration as the security was available to the Assessee. It was also the argument that since the account had been cleared, the blank cheques should have been taken away by Shri D.K. Goyal. However, availability of the cheques with the Assessee does not lead to an inference that the loan was not advanced. We are also of the view that absence of substantial other assets with the Assessee can also lead to an inference that the income earned by way of accommodation-entry business, draft-discounting business etc. was used by the Assessee for advancing loans. Therefore, we are of the view that the transaction was one of loan advanced by the Assessee to Shri D.K. Goyal. The transactions with M. Singh and K. Singh are similar in nature as the transactions with Shri D.K. Goyal. The added factor is that the Assessee was not able to furnish even the addresses of these persons and, therefore, there was no possibility of recording their statements. In such a situation, and keeping in view the clear narration in the seized papers, the loans advanced to them were rightly held to be loans advanced by the Assessee. The seized papers also furnish the workin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, ground No. 5 is allowed. 9. Ground No. 6 is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,68,988, relating to the payment made to Punjab & Sind Bank. It is mentioned that the Assessee had not made any payment mentioned on p. 31 of Annex. A-1 seized during the course of search. It is also mentioned that the lower authorities were not justified in insisting on production of S. Tarsem Singh and S. Narinder Singh when repeated requests were made by the Assessee to issue summons to them, which were not granted. 9.1. In the aforesaid connection, it was submitted before the learned CIT(A) that the aforesaid page relates to settlement between Punjab & Sind Bank on one side and S/Shri Kulwant Singh, Narinder Singh and Tarsem Singh on the other side in respect of the firm of M/s Sant Singh Kulwant Singh, M/s Preeti Automobiles and M/s S.S. Engineering Works, who agreed to pay an amount of ₹ 20 lakhs in full and final settlement. It was further submitted that the bank confirmed that it had received payment of ₹ 5,68,988 till 31st July, 2000, ₹ 1,70,000 in financial year 1999-2000 and ₹ 3,98,988 in financial year 2000-01. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the facts require further examination. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. In this connection, it is mentioned that the Assessee shall furnish complete addresses of the three persons so that summons could be duly served on them. Thereafter, the matter may be decided on merits by taking into account their depositions and the evidence from the bank about the persons who deposited the money. In the result, this ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Ground No. 7, being general in nature, does not require any decision from us. ITA No. 304/Del/2005-Appeal of the Revenue in the case of Shri Kulwant Singh 11. Ground No. 1 is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating commission income from accommodation-entry business at 0.75 per cent against 4 per cent, determined by the AO. In our order in IT(SS)A No. 255/Del/2005, the addition on this ground has been deleted as no evidence was found in the course of search regarding this business. The necessary consequence of the finding is that this ground is dismissed. 12. Ground No. 2 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in reducing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision (supra) of the Tribunal, the issue involved in ground No. 2 of the appeal is decided in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, the order of CIT(A) in this regard is upheld and ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal is rejected. 13.1. Respectfully following the aforesaid order, this ground is dismissed. CO. No. 100/Del/2007- Shri Kulwant Singh 14. This cross-objection has been filed by the Assessee in order to support the order of the learned CIT(A) in regard to the deletion of the peak of unaccounted investments, and also against his finding in respect of income determined for providing accommodation bill and clubbing the income of R.T. Motors (P) Ltd. in the hands of the Assessee. It was the common case of both the parties that if the cross-appeals are decided on merits, the cross-objection will become infructuous. These cross-appeals have already been decided by us. We may add that the Assessee has not taken any objection to clubbing of the income of M/s R.T. Motors (P) Ltd. in the hands of the Assessee. Thus, the whole of the cross-objection has become infructuous. IT(SS)A No. 257/Del/2005-R.T. Motors (P) Ltd. IT(SS)A No. 270/Del/2005-Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
