9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with that the name of the parties, we inclined to agree with the categorical finding given by the CIT(A). The contention of the ld. DR that instead of commission income the entire sale proceeds is to be added fails on merits and in law. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Unaccounted sale by holding that there was no sale of 506 bags of Isabgu - As per AO assessee has sold 506 bags of Isabgul without recording the sales proceeds of this commodity - HELD THAT:- We concur with the finding of the CIT(A) on this aspect and dismiss this ground of appeal of revenue on the basis of the reasoning that before CIT(C) -II the assessee has reconciled the quantity, given the details of the farmer whose goods are lying, the stock is duly reconciled in the paper book filed before us and the balance stock as argued before us are covering the adat commission disclosed in respect of the quantity of goods that alleged to have been sold as sale made on behalf of farms and the quantity of the goods lying with the assessee even on the date of search thus, the fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of adat commission and vachyati sale the sale computed by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord. Therefore, considering the reconciliation chart placed before us with the seized records and entries passed in the books and the amount of the commission disclosed in the return of income as undisclosed income. We do not find any force in the arguments of the ld. DR and inclined to accept the views of the CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity with the finding of the CIT(A) while deleting this addition and therefore, the ground of the Revenue appeal is failed and dismissed. Unrecorded purchase and thereby unexplained investment in 2436 bags of Isabgul - HELD THAT:-. The absence of the enquiry and reconciliation of statement coupled with the overall disclosure made by the assessee we are of the considered view that the addition deleted by CIT(A) has no error of facts. We have considered the rival submission and in the absence of the department brought any contrary material on record we concurred the view of the CIT(A) and the ground of the department that the assessee has unaccounted purchases of 2436 bags out of the book fails on facts in absence of any evidence and the against the finding and the same is dismissed. Excess stock of 6 bags of Isabgul found which has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave not been updated the current status of that investigation but looking to the finding of the fact that the forensic report clearly establishes that the there is no tempering of the seal and the statement made by the assessee and their relative and staff with that of the quantity mentioned is not exactly matching. In fact, the quantity found in the questioned godown much more than mentioned the quantity mentioned in the statement. Had it been the case of the department than the quantity given in the statement may be matching exactly or in shortage whereas, the quantity found is much more than what is mentioned in the statement. Thus, looking to these two aspects and as quantity of the item jeera is already reconciled and for the reasoned mentioned the same is dealt with the other grounds in this appeal and thus, we do not find merit in the grounds placed before us that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the suspended and protective addition made on account of unexplained stock of jeera of 3,20,814 kg found during the search fails and the same is dismissed. Suspended and protective addition - additions made under section 68 and 69C and assessed in the assessment order u/s 158BB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as the Act ) relevant to the Assessment Year (Block Period). 2. The fact in brief is that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading on commission basis through propriety concern in the name and style of M/s Ashirvad Traders. A search under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 06- 06-2002 in group of cases and assessee is one of the person of the group. During the search, various documents were found and seized indicating undisclosed income of the various assessee of this group. Notice under section 158BC was issued and served on the assessee. In response the assessee filed the return of income for block period declaring undisclosed income of ₹ 7,95,000/- which was assessed at ₹ 4,61,93,130/- after making addition on different account. However on appeal by the assessee the ld. CIT(A) deleted the all the addition made by the AO. Against which the Revenue is in appeal. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts in holding that the assessee has earned only commission income in the admittedly unaccounted sales of 434 bags of jeera in January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icated only on the quantum of stock found vis a vis the book stock of the assessee. During the block assessment, the unrecorded transactions were elaborately explained and proved. Therefore, CIT(A) erred in referring to the order u/s. 264 out of context. 6. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 9,549/- on account of excess stock of 6 bags of Isabgul wherein he had erroneously relied on the assessee s misrepresentation of the real facts of the trade. 7. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,45,260/- made on account of the excess stock of Trabuj seeds. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the suspended and protective addition of ₹ 1,41,90,841/- made on account of the unexplained and hidden stock of jeera of the assessee, disregarding and ignoring the fact that Police investigation in this regard is yet to be finalized. 9. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the suspended and protective addition of ₹ 2,27,77,749/- made on account of unexplained stock of jeera of 3,20,814/- kg found during the search. 10. The ld. CIT(A) erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58 07/01/2002 (Presumably new book) 10 07/01/2002 11 07/01/2002 13 07/01/2002 14 07/01/2002 15 07/01/2002 16 07/01/2002 18 18/01/2002 20 18/01/2002 21 18/01/2002 22 18/01/2002 23 18/01/2002 The sequence and the module discussed above points straight to a logical inferenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the CIT(A). The same is reproduced from the order of the CIT(A): The appellant submits that, the Assessing Officer has while making the above addition totally ignored the explanation given to him which is also reproduced on page 11 of the assessment order. He has also not started as to why the said explanation is not acceptable to him. The appellant now reproduces the said explanation for ready reference as under: You have treated 434 bags equivalent to 23,870 kgs. as unrecorded sales. You appear to have taken the figures of 434 Bories from Ann. A attached with show cause notice. They are the entries pertaining to Adat commission and not pure sale of jeera. A chart is prepared from the seized Ann.A in which commission as per those bills is separately mentioned, which evidently proves that they are the Adat transactions and pure sale transactions. Date Name of the purchaser Page No. of Ann. A-41 Bori Adat Comn. 7.1.2002 Manilal Prabhudas 46 81 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order and have considered the contentions put forth on behalf of the assessee. I find that except the alleged logical interpretation on which the addition is based nothing has been brought on record to conclusively establish that the assessee has sold Jeera on his own account and not on commission basis. In view of what is stated by the assessee and reliance placed on the seized document coupled with the absence of any conclusive evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer, I agree with appellant that he sold 434 bags of Jeera on commission basis only. As for the commission income, as started by the appellant it is covered under the disclosure of ₹ 7,95,000/- each by the assessee and the other two concerns of the assessee group. The addition is therefore deleted. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 9. The ld. DR before us relied on the order of the AO whereas the ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 1024 and vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT-A. 10. We heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The addition made in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing officer that the assessee has sold 506 bags of Isabgul without recording the sales proceeds of this commodity and thereby a sum of ₹ 9,10,800/-(506*75*24=910800) being the price of the goods is added as unaccounted sales of Isabgul. The impugned unaccounted sale was calculated based on the seized document as detailed below: Narration Recorded (bags) Unrecorded(bags) Total (bags) Book stock as on 31-03-2002 405 -NIL- 405 Add : Purchase 2048 2436 4484 Total 2453 2436 4889 Less (1) Sales 673 506** 1179 Net Stock 1780 1930 3710 ** Addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the closing stock .. 14.3 Extract from the second para of page 9 of order dated 26-06-2002 u/s. 264 ISABGUL In the petition u/s. 264, it is claimed that purchases made from 5 farmers from 8.6.2002 to 11.6.2002 as per page 7 of the petition u/s. 264 have not been given credit while working out the profit. The A. O. in his verification report submitted to me that during the course of search 278250 kgs of Isabgul was found and seized. There after 30381 kgs and 89475 kgs of Isabgul have been released u/s. 132B order dated 21.10.2002 and 9.12.2002 respectively. The book stock as on 5.6.2002 is verified to be of 209748 kgs and after adding further purchase between 8.6.2002 and 11.6.2002 the same is worked out to 323913 kgs. 278250 kgs of Isabgul were found on the date of search. Since, the verified booked stock as per the A. O. is worked out to 323913 kgs as against the Isabgul found on the date of search of 278250 kgs no seizure u/s. 132(1) second proviso is called for and accordingly the remaining stock of 188775 kgs of Isabgul is directed to be released forthwith. 14.4 In the assessment order on page 23 para 5.2.1(b) the assessing officer noted that : As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d above, we concur with the finding of the CIT(A) on this aspect and dismiss this ground of appeal of revenue on the basis of the reasoning that before CIT(C) -II the assessee has reconciled the quantity, given the details of the farmer whose goods are lying, the stock is duly reconciled in the paper book filed before us and the balance stock as argued before us are covering the adat commission disclosed in respect of the quantity of goods that alleged to have been sold as sale made on behalf of farms and the quantity of the goods lying with the assessee even on the date of search thus, the fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of adat commission and vachyati sale the sale computed by the assessing officer without any reference to the seized material and therefore, we find no merits in respect of this addition made the ground of appeal of the department dismissed. 18. The third ground of the Revenue appeal is that ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of ₹ 20,98,800/- made on account of unaccounted sale of jeera for 23320 kg as admitted on oath by the accountant of the assessee. 19. The AO during assessment proceeding from the seized material being annex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adat commission on the undisclosed quantity of the commodity jeera which also cover the entries in seized material being Annexure A041 and therefore, the finding of the AO is erroneous and finding of the CIT(A) is correct based on the facts available on record. 24. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the addition of ₹ 20,98,000/- for unaccounted sale of jeera weighing 23320 kg was made by the AO on the basis of admission by the accountant of the assessee which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) has given a finding that as the statement relied upon is retracted and assessee has earned commission income out of such sales which would be covered in the total disclosure by the group. 24.1 We have also gone through the content of the affidavit filed by Shri Mahendra A. Patel. The affidavit filed states that they did not have the correct facts on hand have requested to call for the owner at the premises and in their absence the statement has been recorded forcefully without the correct fact being explained. The ld. AR has been able to explain his contention by filling the reconciliation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourse of assessment proceedings based on seized material found out that the assessee had purchased 15,371 bags of Jeera as detailed below: Bags in number ( i ) Purchase bills appearing in Annexure A-29** 6655 ( ii ) Purchase bills appearing in Annexure A-27** 4972 ( iii ) Purchase bills appearing in Annexure A-39** 1332 ( iv ) Purchases clearly marked as Vyapar Khatu in Annexure A-22 2412 Total number of Bags 15371 26.2 The assessing officer further observed that the 15371 bag of jeera weighing at 845405 kgs of Jeera whereas the appellant had recorded purchase of jeera at 277530 kg only. Thus balance 567875 kg of jeera have remained unrecorded. The accountant of the assessee also admitted in statement recorded under section 132(4) that many purchases were not recorded in the books of account. The AO worked out the value of unaccounted purchase at ₹ 4,03,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) Unrecorded sale of Jan 2002 deteced in A041 to be reduced from the book stock of 31.3.2002 23870 23870 Net stock 147346 520685 668031 26.4 The actual stock of Jeera found on the date of search was of 468160 kg as against the accounted book stock of 147346 kg. 26.5 The assessing officer further on page 23 of his assessment order after considering the show cause notice and replies filed by the assessee considered that the total purchases by the assessee during the year for trade was of 15371 bags or 845405 kg. Out of this, the assessee was seen to have above unrecorded quantity of 567875 kg of Jeera which was valued at ₹ 4,03,19,125.00 and added the same after setting off the amount ( ₹ 41,41,131.00) of unrecorded sale (₹ 3,61,77,994.00) to the total income of the assessee. 27. Aggrieved assessee preferred to appeal before learned CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 7.2 I have considered the assessment order and the above submissions made on b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Particulars Quantity ( Bags) Un accounted stock of Jeera as per AO (Pg 23 of Assessment order 15371 Less : Stock duly recorded in books of accounts and verified by CIT in proceeding u/s. 264 of the Act (Pg 22 of CIT(A) order ) 5879 Balance 9492 Less : Duplication / Triplication as per Annexure A/27, A/29, A/15, A/39 9492 Un accounted stock NIL 31. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties, have gone through the reconciliation statements and material placed before the assessing officer and before CIT(A) and a reconciliation statement filed before us. Also perused the finding in the order passed under section 264 by ld. CIT for release of seized goods before the assessment proceeding which were also discussed in the preceding paragraph in this order, where in the assessing officer has also filed a detailed remand report. We have persuaded all these arguments, finding recorded in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found to have done unaccounted trade. The total detected unrecorded purchases made was of 2436 bags or 2436*75=182700 kg. The investment therein at the average cost of ₹ 21.22 being 2436*75*21.22 = 36,76,894 is therefore, treated as unexplained investment made by the assessee. Out of this, the sale proceeds of 506 bags being ₹ 9,10,800 has been taxed in para 5.2.1(b) above. In the same manner as discussed in detail in the case of Jeera above, the sale proceeds need to be treated as having been reinvested in the procurement of unaccounted stock of Isabgul. Hence the effective addition on this count as unexplained purchase of Isabgul will be (3876894 (910800) = ₹ 29,66,094/-. 33.1 The assessee stated that originally the AO had issued show cause notice proposing to make addition of ₹ 80,81,114/- on this Isabgul commodity. Thereafter, as tabulated in 12.2 para while considering unaccounted sales a table is extracted from the assessment order which was in the opinion of the assessing officer to be the alleged unaccounted purchase of 2436 bags. The value as derived for this purchase comes to ₹ 38,76,894/- out of that AO has considered 506 bags unexp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k found is at 3,710 (see table at para 12.2). This shows that there is no alleged unaccounted purchase of the commodity Isabgul. Considering the above factual position and the DR has not pointed any defect in the finding made based on stated facts by the CIT(A) and he has vehemently replied upon the argument and discussion made in the assessment order. 33.3 We have persuaded the above submission and order of the CIT(A) on the issue and the arguments placed before us by both the party we are of the considered view that looking to the above factual aspects on fact there is no additional stock found. Even the CIT(A) has given a detailed finding of facts in his order vide para 8 of his order. 33.4 Considering the stated facts, we are of the considered view that the finding of the CIT(A) is in accordance with the material placed on record. The point of the AR of the assessee that the CIT(C)-II has already given his finding based on the remand report of the AO ( see para 9 above ), even the details of the farmer whose commodity is lying as confirmed by placing their confirmation have not been contradicted even though this details were placed well in advance in 2003 and the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed that same belonging to some farmers. As in the case of Castor seeds elaborately discussed above, this item of trade was also not mentioned in any of your regular books. For the reasons mentioned in the case of Castor seeds above these stocks of Tarbuj seeds also prima facie, represents your undisclosed investment in stock. The value of this stock as on the day of search at the rate of ₹ 9 per Kg. is ₹ 1,45,260/-. 36.3 There is no other finding in the assessment order, therefore, we have persuaded the order of the CIT( C )-II where in on page 2 the quantity of this item listed and the shown as released there is no adverse remark in that order. 36.4 We have also persuaded the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and he has relied upon the submission of the assessee and in para 11.1 on page 30 of his order he has stated that I have looked in to the assessment order and have considered the contentions put forth on behalf of the assessee. For similar reasons as discussed above while dealing with the addition for the stock of Caster seeds, Isabgul etc. I hold that there is no justification for making the addition of ₹ 1,45,260/- as the goods belonged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unted turnover the total stock that the assessee should be holding was worked out at 668031 kg, as against the stock found at the time of search 468160 kg. From this figurative the assessing officer of the view that the stock was short to the extent of 199871 kgs. The assessing officer has referred to the reply of the assessee and stated that the same is not acceptable for the following reasons: (a) The assessee has not voluntarily given the full details regarding the stock of its goods. (b) The assessee has not given any full data regarding its sales. (c )Unaccounted sales were detected in many instances in the assessee's case. (d)The unaccounted purchases and sales are not correlated lot-wise inthese instances. So, looking to the above argument the assessing officer took a view that the part of the stock could not be found during the search. 38.1 The next argument of the assessing officer is that the assessing officer given contradictory statements about the godowns and its location where in the goods were stored for the three concerns of the group. The assessee has not disclosed the godown No.6/B and 300 of APMC and Kamonia Para. It has been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish that no goods were removed from the alleged premises. 38.5 Thus, what the assessee stated was the stock on an estimated basis without having specific knowledge of the contents of the stock of goods lying in the godown and no credence should be given to such a statement based upon the probabilities which on the contrary establishes that nothing was removed by the assessee as alleged. Therefore, there is no justification in adopting the imaginary figure of stock in the godown when assessee ought to have proceeded with the actual stock found. No addition is called for on the estimate basis. The assessee further furnished that Forensic Science Laboratory of the government had given their report dated 18-6- 2002 wherein it was stated by them after investigation that (a) There was no indication of any fresh welding made in the hinges of the doors. (b) The color of the hinges of the doors was same. 38.6 It was therefore, stated by the assessee that there was thus no proof of any depressing with the sealed premises as alleged by the ADI. He had launched the FIR only on the basis of hearsay and without any proof and merely based on some news reported in the news pape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g seal, and subsequent allegation based on news report without any evidence cannot justify such conclusion of removal of goods. Therefore, the statement recorded during the course of search itself conclusively establish that no stock was removed as alleged. The question of making any addition simply does not arise. Therefore, the observation made by the Assessing Officer or the Department representative has no force supported by an evidence. 38.9 Looking the rival submission on the record and argument made during the course of hearing we find force in the argument of the AR of the assessee and is based on the supportive evidence. Even the stock found in search were duly reconciled and the commission on the sale of Vachyati Goods is already offered and that amount is accepted by the department making any adjustment that figure too and there is no contrary finding placed on record in the assessment order and thus based on our finding on the various additions made on account of item jeera we find no force that the assessee is still having unexplained and hidden stock of jeera to the extent of ₹ 1,41,90,841/-, therefore, we find force in the finding of the CIT(A) on this poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60 Kg. as against the accounted book stock of 147346 Kg. Thus, the following facts are, prima-facie evident. (a) On the date of search, stock of 320814 Kg. [468160 (-) 147346] was found in excess of the book stock. This represents the undisclosed investment made by you and the value therein at the rate of ₹ 71 per kg. totaling ₹ 2,27,77,794/- warrants taxation u/s. 158BB. 39.2 The arguments placed by the AR in response to the above contention and appearing at page 34 of the order of the CIT(A) is extracted here in below: The excess stock worked out by you does not reflect the correct position of stock. The combined stock position of all the three concerns will be as shown below: Book stock as on 31.3.2002 190879 Add: Purchases from 01.04.2002 till the date of search (5705 Bags) 313785 504664 Less: Sales from 01.04.2002 till 05.06.2002 (5047 bags) 277610.700 gms Stock on date of search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances, the actual stock found in excess of the book stock of the assessee represents its unaccounted investment taxable u/s.69 and assessable u/s.158BB. 39.4 The undisclosed income quantified in this regard, in respect of various commodities as explained by the AR of the assessee in various charts is as under: Item Book stock (Kg) Stock found(Kg) Difference (Kg) Cost(Rs.) Jeera 147346 468160 320804 22777794 Isabgul 133500 278700 145200 3081114 Caster Seeds 318575 477580 159005 1987562 Tarbuj seeds NIL 17140 16140 145260 Total 22991730 39.5 The view of the assessing officer while making the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round no 11 the department has stated that CIT(A) has ignored the sworn statements of the accountant of the group and thereby solely relying on some affidavits prepared by these persons negating their earlier depositions under oath. 40.1 These are the additions made under section 68 and 69C and assessed in the assessment order u/s 158BB of the Act. The breakup of this addition as is made on page 20 of the assessment order is reproduced here in below for the sake of brevity of the amount and its nature. Unexplained cash credit ₹ 1,15,00,000/- Unexplained interest ₹ 3,35,572/- Unexplained cash credit (Kishore) ₹ 1,60,000/- Unexplained interest (Kishore) ₹ 10,796/- ₹ 120,06,368/- 40.2 Before us the authorized representative has argued that the CIT(A) has given detailed finding on this issue at para 14 to 14.2 on page 49 to 53. The addition has been made on the basis of the seized Annexure A-04 found during the search where i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easily de-coded on the basis of notings of page no.1 a figure 3.35572 identifiable as interest needs no further interpretation and he has recognized it as ₹ 3,35,572/- therefore according to him a total of the page no.1 can be established ₹ 70,00,000/-+ ₹ 45,00,000/ being un accounted cash loans taken by the assessee and the amount of ₹ 3,35,572/- represent interest paid thereof. Accordingly these amounts are held to be taxable u/s. 68 and 69C respectively. It is stated by the assessing officer that however, this amounts are identified as undisclosed income for which the addition is suspended on account of composite addition made for the unrecorded purchases. 14.1 In this connection the appellant referred to the following explanation furnished to the assessing officer: In this connection, reference to para 2 of our letter dated 15.4.2002 is invited. In this para, it is submitted that this annexure contain some papers with no details and that the assessee did not recollect as to who and for what purpose the said writing was made. It was also submitted by Shri Virchand D. Shah in the said letter that the writing on page nos.1 page no.2 was either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to the sales. Our case is further supported by the Ahmedabad Tribunal decision in the case ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mill (1995) 52 TTJ 533 in which also it was held that mere entries in the account of a third party is not sufficient to prove that the assessee had made sales outside books of account. The Ahmedabad Tribunal has relied on the Bombay decision in Addl. CIT vs. Lata Mangeshker (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom). In this view of the matter, it is submitted that the amounts totaling to ₹ 1,12,35,000/- are not the cash transactions pertaining to the assessee and that they are not written in any books maintained by the assessee and, therefore, no addition u/s.68 r.w.s. 1588B requires to be made in the case of the assessee group. In the course of hearing the appellant further stated that a cursory glance at the figures mentioned on the said pages 1 2 would show that there is nothing in these figures to even indicate that it represent cash received by the assessee. The alleged de-codification of the interest of ₹ 3,35,572/-. It may be pointed i out that there is nothing in the seized material even to presume that Interest and such interest of ₹ 3.35,572/- w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it represents cash received by the assessee. Therefore, the question of taxing the same as cash credit simply does not arise. Similarly there is no justification in making the addition of ₹ 3,35,572/- invoking the provisions of section 69C of the IT. Act because there is nothing in the assessment order to justify the addition as the expenditure itself is not established. I therefore hold that there is no question of suspending the additions held by the Assessing Officer. These are deleted. 40.3 Before us, the authorized representative have argued that a) The page seized did not belong to him b) It was not in his handwriting or the handwritings of any other partner or any other connected persons. c) Initial burden lying upon the assessee, was thus discharged. d) On these grounds it was held that the Department had completely failed that the assessee had made any unexplained investment during relevant year out of that money so borrowed all the investment and stock found has been duly reconciled and there is no portion of the assesse that has been deemed to have been acquired out of this cash credits. e) The assessee has stated that he had not wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ahmedabad bench decision and raised various points as noted in point no. 20.3 above and the points of the arguments placed before us by the DR. We considered the findings of the CIT(A) is the finding of the facts and in law and DR has not pointed out any single defects in the findings of the CIT(A). Considering the arguments of both the side we find force in the arguments placed by the AR of the assessee and finding of the CIT(A) and thus looking to the overall arguments of the both the sides we inclined to accept the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed both the grounds of appeal of the department on facts and in law. Thus, Grounds No. 10 11 both are dismissed on the reasons stated here in above. 41. The ground no. 13 is in relation to the substantial addition of ₹ 19,87,756 be apportioned equally between the three assessee s irrespective of the fact that the purchases had been effected in the case of the assessee only and ground no. 13 is in relation the findings of the CIT(A) directing that the undisclosed income of the group of assessee shall be apportioned equally between the three assessee even though the assessee or his associates could, at any point of time, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
