9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Tribunal thereby making addition in the income of the appellant as income from undisclosed sources is liable to be interfered with. Hence, the argument so raised by the appellant is rejected. Addition on account of unrecorded rolling charges - HELD THAT:- Tribunal had restored addition of this amount on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove that it had incurred any expenses. Appellant failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the order as passed by learned Tribunal on this point. The appellant did not dispute that the fact that the entries made in document A-1 were qua the amount received as rolling charges. It could not produce any material on record to prove that the expenses which were shown to be incurred in respect of job work charges and received from various parties, were recorded in the books of account. As such, the appellant was certainly not entitled to deduction to the extent of 75% in the amount as shown and was liable to addition thereof. Resultantly, no intervention is required to be made by this Court in the order of Tribunal. Addition on account of rolling charges received outside the books of account - CIT (A) had allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within statutory period. Those returns had been processed under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act. A search and seizure operation at the residential premises of the partners of the appellant as well as its business premises was conducted on 05.08.1994 and some incriminating documents relating to the appellant-Firm for the relevant assessment years had been found. The cases of both assessment years were taken up for scrutiny and notices under different provisions of the Act were issued against it. After considering the replies filed by the appellant, the assessing officer vide order dated 27.03.1997 passed order qua A.Y. 1994- 95 and an order was passed on 27.03.1998 qua A.Y. 1995-96. Additions were made in the taxable income of the appellant for the relevant assessment years and proceedings for charging interest and imposition of penalty were ordered to be initiated separately. 3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the assessing officer qua the additions made to its income, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla (for short CIT (A) ) who vide separate orders dated 03.03.2001 as passed in those appeals, granted partial relief to the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant only on the ground that the addition of Rs.8,36,936/- as made in the income of the assessee did not pertain to the year under scrutiny and some of the said amount related to the purchases made by M/s B.R. Metals. However, neither before the authorities below nor before this Court, the appellant could bring any material on record to show that the addition of Rs.3,50,000/- was not pertaining to the A.Y. 1994-95 or the same related to purchases not made by it but by its sister concern namely, M/s B.R. Metal. The assessee is proved to have incurred expenditure qua the relevant year but could not offer any explanation about the sources of expenditure or part thereof. The explanation as offered by him that the addition did not pertain to the year under scrutiny and was qua the purchases made by its sister concern had not been found to be satisfactory by the authorities below. As such, under the provisions of Section 69-C of the Act, such amount will certainly be deemed to be income of the assessee for the year 1994-95. Accordingly, we find no reason as to why the order passed by the Tribunal thereby making addition to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- in the income of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, were recorded in the books of account. As such, the appellant was certainly not entitled to deduction to the extent of 75% in the amount as shown and was liable to addition thereof. Resultantly, no intervention is required to be made by this Court in the order of Tribunal. 7. Let us now take up the arguments raised in the second appeal which is related to the A.Y. 1995-96. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the assessing officer had made an addition of an amount of Rs.5,76,726/- in the income of the appellant for the A.Y. 1995-96 on account of rolling charges received outside the books of account and the CIT (A) had allowed deduction @75% from the addition so made and had allowed addition to the extent of 25% only after calculating the net profit on job receipts. He argued that the Tribunal had illegally restored the addition of the said 75% on the ground that the transaction was not disputed by the appellant. On perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below, it is explicit that neither there was any challenge by the appellant of the fact that the entries made in the seized document were related to it nor it could establish that the transactions as sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
