9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... di/ 2007 in the case of Shri Hazari Lal, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- "4.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding the non existence of commission agency prior to the period relevant to A. Y. 1997-98 on the ground that the documents dated 22.05.1993 found during search operation neither contained any mention of the assessee nor its relevance to the assessee particularly when on the contrary, the provisions of section 158BB(3) of the Act specifically cast onus on the assessee to establish the non-relateability of the document found during search with supporting documentary evidence? 4.2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing relief of Rs.10,02,250/- to the assessee on the ground that the document dated 22.05.1993 seized was not confronted to the assessee during search operation when the document seized at the time of search had been confronted to the assessee during the assessment proceedings? 4.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said document contains entries which depict either undisclosed incomes or undisclosed investments made by the assessee. Prima facie a glance of the said document does not show as to what it contains or what it means. The notations of the amounts and the names do not carry any description of the nature of the transaction as made out by the Revenue. Therefore, in order to make out an intelligible inference of such document, the same has to be deciphered by its author. Since it has been found from the assessee it becomes the duty of the assessee to explain the same. The assessee was confronted with the said document in the course of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain as why the impugned amounts be not held as unexplained investment assessable in the hands of the assessee. The plea of the assessee was that in so far as the amounts totaling Rs.33,80,000 is concerned, the same reflects summary of payments which were due from various dealers and the payments in respect of which were to be made to the customers who sold the vehicles. The assessee submitted that he being in the business of commission agency, was only acting as a middleman in the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material found during the search. In this light, we have perused the statement of the assessee recorded during the course search, the seized material in question, the informations furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and find nothing to infer that the assessee was purchasing the vehicles and thereafter selling them on his own account. In fact, undisputedly a delivery book was seized at the time of search and the assessee contended that its examination does not reveal that the assessee ever purchased the vehicles on its own account and thereafter sold the same. This averment was made before the Assessing Officer. There is no rebuttal to this from the side of the Revenue. Therefore, to reach at such presumption and thereafter use it to decipher the contents of the document No.34 would be unjustified. In this situation, it is safe to deduce that the explanation tendered by the assessee with regard to the impugned notations is plausible and deserves to be accepted in the background of fact that the contra inference by the Assessing Officer is not based on any material. Therefore, we do not find any justification for sustaining the addition of Rs.33,80,000. 17. Now i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nses claimed to have been incurred to meet the household expenses in the period relevant to Block Period in question. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied and considering the social status of the assessee and the household articles etc. owned by the assessee found the expenditure claimed by the assessee to be on the lower side. He made an addition of Rs.5,37,239 as unexplained household expenses. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has since deleted the said addition by making the following discussion in Para 7.3 of his order which reads as under:- "7.3 The contention of the Ld. Counsel that the department did not discover any evidence during the search and seizure which proved conclusively that the household expenses declared by the assessee was less than the actual and therefore, no addition could be made under section 158 BC for it by simply estimating the expenditure is correct. Therefore, in view of the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and the case law relied upon by him as also in view of the order of the HTAT Mumbai 'B' Bench in the case of Sunder Agencies V Deputy CIT (1997) 59 TTJ (mum) 610, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for low house ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
