9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e family. The entry was dt. 26th Jan., 1997. It was mentioned "to send Rs. 0.80 lakhs + Rs. 50 lakhs cash to WBTA." The AO found that there was no such entry in the regular books of account relating to the transfer of money from Sri K.D. Paul and he accordingly, treated the loan of Rs. 50,80,000 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources under s. 69A of the Act. 4. Besides, additions of Rs. 2,70,000 and Rs. 5,75,670 were made on account of entries in rough hand exercise book maintained by the cashier on account of sales and collection of ADPL. The addition of Rs. 50,80,000 and Rs. 8,45,670 was thus made for asst. yr. 1997-98. The CIT(A) has deleted both the additions. In respect of the addition of Rs. 8,45,670, the CIT(A) has accepted the explanation of the assessee that the amount represented the cash collections on behalf of ADPL and, accordingly, there was no justification for the addition as the amount had been reflected in the books of account. 5. In regard to the addition of Rs. 50,80,000, the learned CIT(A) has held that there is no warrant for the addition as there is no evidence on record either direct or circumstantial to establish that Sri K.D. Paul had act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of Rs. 57,49,004 for the asst. yr. 1996-97/Rs. 67,08,744 for the asst. yr. 1997-98/Rs. 1,75,000 for the asst. yr. 1998-99 (part) in relying on layman's impression of 'undisclosed income' in the sense that assets, source of acquisition of which could not be explained, can only form the subject-matter of assessment under Chapter XIV-B. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A)-XV, Calcutta, erred in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,26,32,748 being his analysis solely on peripherial considerations inspite of the fact that the debtors were not available for cross verification nor could the transactions be traced in regular accounts or otherwise explained by the assessee with material particulars." 10. The AO had made an aggregate addition of Rs. 1,26,32,748 on account of advance from debtors (sic-dealers). In course of search, certain advances were found to have been recorded on loose papers. When asked to explain the nature of the entries, it was explained that the assessee was collecting money from the parties to whom sales were made. It was further explained that there is a business practice to make advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sales register of the appellant-company of Rs. 56,33,004. The transaction to the extent of an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,15,500 were confirmed by the parties. A sum of Rs. 500 was also found to be refunded to the party." The sum total of the three items referred to above works out to Rs. 51,49,004. 11. In regard to the addition of Rs. 67,08,744 for asst. yr. 1997-98, the CIT(A) has also recorded a finding of fact on verification of records as under: "Thus the total sales adjusted found duly recorded in the sales register of the appellant-company was of Rs. 67,76,264. Apart from recording the finding of fact that the advances have been found as adjusted against sales, the CIT(A) has held that the additions made by the AO of the aforesaid amounts are not on the basis of any material found in the course of search suggesting concealment of income. The advances/sales have been reflected in the regular books of account and as such the additions were not warranted in the course of block assessment. The CIT(A) has placed reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shambhulal C. Bachkaniwala (2000) 162 CTR (Guj) 435 : (2000) 108 Taxman 515 (Guj). T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ablish the trade practice and the fact that such advances have been adjusted against sales disclosed and assessed in regular assessment. The CIT(A), in our view, was justified in deleting the addition. Similar additions made for asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 in the case of Jt. CIT vs. Aparna Marketing, a sister concern of the appellant, have been deleted by the Tribunal. We do not find any material on record for taking a contrary view. We, therefore, decline to interfere. 15. The only other ground that remains to be considered is relating to the addition of Rs. 3,11,332 on account of cash found but not seized on the date of search. Cash amounting to Rs. 3,11,332 was found in the course of search at the assessee's registered office. The said cash was not seized. During the course of block assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the source of the cash. A statement in relation to the cash-in-hand was filed. It was claimed that the cash found at the registered office of the assessee represented collections made by different sales representatives from the market on the date immediately preceding the date of search. By way of evidence, copies of the relevant cash sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
