Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2011 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 962 - MADRAS HIGH COURTUnaccounted immovable and movable properties - Search and seizure at residential premises of the partners of the firm and other business concerns - addition on account of difference in value as unexplained investment in the block assessment - Held that:- Transactions being done by the partners of the firm should be treated as the transactions being done by the firm. Therefore, the contention that the assessee-firm is not liable to be assessed cannot be accepted. Further CIT or the Tribunal had not brushed aside the finding of the AO with regard to the difference amount in sale consideration, on the other hand, they came to a conclusion that since the assessee had admitted an excess amount than the actual undisclosed income, the assessee is not liable to pay tax on the addition amount. Aforesaid contention cannot be accepted Entries in the seized diary - whether treated as a document as contemplated u/s 132(4A)- Held that:- From the materials on record it is seen that Shri Vishnu, the author of the diary, is none other than the son of one of the partners and it is stated that on the instructions of the father, the son had written them in the diary. The appellate authority as well as the Tribunal had failed to take note of the applicability of section 132(4A) to the present case as it was specifically enacted to the purpose of search and seizure, instead they had relied on the general provision of section 132(4) of the Act. Section 132(4A) does not prohibit the Assessing Officer from drawing a presumption when the case falls under the case of search and seizure. Hence, presumption, raised by the AO with regard to the seized diary is a valid one and it was very much available to be raised u/s 132(4A) - Decided in favor of Revenue
|