TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cifically dealt by the ld.CIT(A) on pages 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned order. In other words, it is a cumulative analysis of all the facts at the end of the First Appellate Authority to demonstrate that alleged calculation of gross on-money at the end of AO was not the income of the assessee. It contained certain expenditure also which are noted on those very pages and credit of those expenditure are also to be considered. Taking into consideration these aspects, books were not considered as reliable and profit element embedded in the receipts has been added. This profit has been calculated at the rate of 16%. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the ld.CIT(A), and first ground of appeal is rejected. Applying net profit rate at 16% - HELD THAT:- As applied at the rate of 42%. We find that this rate has been applied by the ld.CIT(A) after taking into consideration comparable cases of eight assessees. Specific example has been given on page no.16 of the impugned order. Thus, in our opinion, the ld.CIT(A) has exercised his discretion after taking into consideration various other factors. Disallowance u/s 40A - HELD THAT:- Once income of the assessee has been es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses. The ld.CIT(A) made reference to eight comparable cases before adopting percentage of 16% required to be applied on on-money receipts. Similarly, thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) made reference to order of the ITAT in different cases. Thus, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) has appreciated the facts and circumstances in right perspective and has applied pragmatic rate of profit on-money receipts. We do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. They are rejected. Unexplained investment plus expenditure - HELD THAT:- The assessee has pointed out that entry of ₹ 1,14,12,000/- in the Asstt.Year 2009-10 has been made twice by the AO in table no.3 on page 36-38 of the assessment order. This aspect has been appraised from the seized material also. CIT(A) has considered it an error at the end of the AO. No material was brought to our notice pointing out as to how the ld.CIT(A) has erred in construing this figure. Therefore, after going through the order of the ld.CIT(A), we do not see any error in it. As far assessment of income from the on-money receipt is concerned, we have already adjudicated this issue in the Asstt.Year 2008-09, wherein we have upheld the finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing on-money receipt from sale of flat. 2) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding unilaterally that the on money of ₹ 61,00,000/- represented cancellation and therefore cannot be taken as part of the on-money earned by the assessee without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity in this respect. 3) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in applying the rate of 16% to determine the unaccounted profit on the on-money ignoring that the assessee having declared a profit of ₹ 15 crore on-on-money of ₹ 36 crore in the course of survey thereby admitting his profit margin at 42%. 4) The Ld.CIT(A) while estimating the unaccounted profits erred in not applying the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act in respect of the expenditure incurred. 5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 6) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT (A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent. 5. A perusal of the above grounds will indicate that only one issue is involved in this appeal, and all other grounds taken by the Revenue are pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 2013-2014 onwards Pending Pending 1,49,80,026 14,70,00,000 Add. 2010-2011 for admission in the case of Brijwasi Construction Rs. 30,00,000 Total Rs. 15,00,00,000 Notes:- 1. This search was conducted on 18.01.2006 and Assessee made declaration ₹ 1.86 Crores. This declaration was reflected in return of Income filed after date of search. 2. Survey was conducted on 06.03.2010 and declaration of 15 Crores was made for various Years. 3. As returns of Income were already filed for A.Y.2007-2008 to A.Y.2009-2010, no declaration could be made in the return of Income but addition confirmed by CIT (A) accepted. 4. However the declaration was made in the return of Income for A.Y.2010-2011 0nwards. 5. Assesses claimed telescoping of ₹ 1.86 Cores declared at the time of search relevant to A.Y.2006-2007. 6. Revenue has filed the appeals before Hon'ble Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the AO. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that only element of profit involved in these on-money is to be assessed as income of the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) has made reference to the cases of eight similarly situated assessees wherein net profit has been applied by the AO for working out taxable income on the basis of on-money received by them. All these assessees were assessed in similar range. The ld.CIT(A) made reference to the statement of Shri Murarilal Agarwal recorded during the course of survey. The finding of the ld.CIT(A) is worth to note in this connection. It reads as under: 4.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the order of the A.O. and the submissions of the appellant. In the present case, it is seen that that the appellant has been recognizing its revenue at the time of sale of flats and this method of accounting has been consistently followed by it and the same has even been accepted by the A.O. Further, it is seen that during the course of survey action, various incriminating evidences of not only unaccounted receipts i.e. on-money has been found but notings of even unaccounted expenditure incurred therefrom have been found and impound ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No. 6 given by Shri Murarilal Agarwal in his statement recorded during the course of Survey The explanation in respect of books and files inventorised as Annexure Bl is as follows. 6) BI-11 : This diary contains the nottings of project related payment of expenses. .. .. 10) BI-16 : This pad contains nottings of measurement related to construction work and details of expenditure. 13) BI-19 : This book contains the nottings of sale / booking of flats in various projects constructed by us as received in cash and cheque along with the name of the buyer, area of the flat and sale rate per sq. ft. The figures written in this book are in code and in some places full figures are written. Whatever figures are written in codes may be read in lacs. For example, the figure 97/00 written on page no. 1 means ₹ 97,00,000/- (Ninety Seven Lacs). In the same way, the figures 32/00, 60/00 and 18/00 as written on page no. 10 means ₹ 32 lacs, ₹ 60 lacs and ₹ 18 lacs. Whatever cash payment is noted in the said book has not been recorded in the regular books whereas against cheque payment the word (P) has been written which means Pakka i.e. the said payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rores should be accepted, since, they were well aware that the impounded material also contained detail of unaccounted expenses. The appellant has pointed out the impounded material in the form of Annexure-BI19 which contains detail of both unaccounted receipts and unaccounted expenditure arid I thus, agree with the appellant that this is not a case where only evidence of on-money receipts have been found but this is a case where incomplete records of unaccounted receipts and expenditure have been found. . Therefore, I am of the opinion that the A.O. has grossly erred in holding that the impounded material contain no details of unaccounted expenditure and therefore, his action of adding the entire on-money as income is contrary to the facts of the case. It is thus an established fact that in the present case, incomplete details of unaccounted receipts (on-money) .and unaccounted expenditure have been found and the total income of the appellant could not be properly computed on the basis of such incomplete evidences and in such cases, it is a well established law that the entire undisclosed sales could not be added as income of the assessee but the addition could be made only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire undisclosed sales could not be added as income of the assessee but the addition could be made only to the extent of estimated profits embedded in sales for which the net profit rate was adopted and hence no referrable question of law arises. ; Similar view has also been taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) and the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Sai Krupa Construction (2007) 13 SOT 459 (Mumbai). In view of the facts of the case and respectfully following the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal, I am of the considered view that even in the present case, where there are incomplete evidences of both unaccounted income (onmoney) and unaccounted expenditure incurred therefrom, the A.O. is not justified in making addition for the entire unaccounted receipts i.e. on-money in respect of 3 flats of 'Platinum Apartment' sold during the year under consideration and therefore, I hold that the income in this regard needs to be computed by applying a comparable rate of net profit on the onmoney received by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I/CC.1/140/200910. The stand taken by the A.O. in the assessment order in the case M/s. Ashirwad Corporation passed u/s. 143(3) on 31-122009, is reproduced herein below. Para 7.14 Page No. 31 of the assessment order of Ashirwad Corporation Various Courts have ruled that what needs to be assessed after rejection of books of a/c is the true income of the assessee which should be the net profit from these unaccounted transactions. The assessee has also cited several decisions in this regard. The assessee has also contended that if the incomplete evidences found are considered as evidences of 'on-money' for the entire project then similar incomplete evidences which have been found in respect of unaccounted expenditure should also be extrapolated to find out such expenditure for the entire project. The assessee has also contended that the Department has not found any assets in excess of the disclosure made by the assessee. The assessee has first of all denied having received any 'onmoney' and incurred any unaccounted expenditure. However, while making alternative contention it has also contended that it has not maintained any record of unaccounted tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is clear from the 'Remarks' column. Besides, in the following cases of builders assessed in the Central Range, following net profit rates have been estimated:- A/o. Details of the Case % of Net Profit Remarks 1. S.P. Enterprise (Block period 1990-91 to 19992000) 20% Commercial project. IT AT sustained the net profit @ 15% 2. Shrinath corporation (Block period 1990-91 to 1999-2000) 20% 15% 20% for commercial project and 15% on Residential project. 3. Jagdamba Corporation (Block period 1990-91 to 1999-2000) 15% Residential project. 3. Dew Corporation (Block period 1990-91 to 19992000) 15% Residential project. 4. Manhar Kakadia (AOP) A.Y.2004-05 12.5% Residential project. 5. Manhar Kakadia (AOP) A.Y.2005-06 12.5% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition to the profit disclosed by the assessee in its books of a/c which depict the picture of the accounts without considering the unaccounted receipts and unaccounted expenses. From the above findings in the case of M/s. Ashirwad Corporation, it is seen that the A.O. in the same Central Range, Surat on similar facts has applied net profit rate of 16% on the on-money receipts, by respectfully following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal, for the same assessment year and that too on much higher on-money receipts of ₹ 116.62 crores, which is a comparable case which can be applied to the present case. Therefore, I hold that following the decisions in various similar cases by the hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad as mentioned above and precedence as set by the A.Os. in the same Central Range, Surat, in other similar cases, for the same assessment year which were passed with the approval of the Range head of central Range Surat, the income of the appellant in respect of on-money received on sale of 3 residential flats of 'Platinum Apartment' also needs to be computed by adopting a net profit rate @ 16%. Further, I also agree with the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee in the profit loss which was disclosed to the department. The on-money receipts were unaccounted profit which is net of expenditure. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in considering profit on alleged on-money inbetween at the rate of 16%. 10. On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied upon the orders of the ld.CIT(A). He contended that the assessee has already honoured statement of Shri Murarilal Agarwal. Group has offered ₹ 15 crores for taxation in different assessment years. Additions sustained by the ld.CIT(A) are not being disputed. He further pointed out that during the course of survey, it emerges out that the Department has calculated alleged on-money receipts to the extent of ₹ 36 crores, but they accepted net declaration of ₹ 15 crores, meaning thereby, the department is having information about element of profit in these receipts. The ld.CIT(A) has taken cognizance of these specific fact. He further placed on record copy of assessment order passed in the case of Evergreen Industries P.Ltd. and submitted that this assessment order was passed by DCIT, Cent.Cir.1, Surat wherein profit rate on-money was applied. Similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound during the course of survey, total unaccounted on-money receipts was of ₹ 36.52 crores received from sale of flats. These details also contained unaccounted expenditure of ₹ 20.7 crores. Survey team was well aware about this aspect and that is why net income of ₹ 15 crores was accepted as a declaration on behalf of the assessee. Had that not been in the knowledge of the Department, then the survey team would have emphasized the assessee to declare ₹ 36.53 crores. Apart from the above facts, we further find that consistently approach of the Revenue was to work out profit element embedded in those on-money receipts. The Tribunal has also considered this aspect in the case of Jay Builders (supra). Thus, there was no clinching evidence with the Department to demonstrate that gross-receipts of on-money calculated out of impounded material found during the course of survey is deserved to be considered as net profit. As far as statement of Shri Murarilal Agarwal, that statement has duly been considered by the ld.First Appellate Authority. Reply to question no.7 has been specifically dealt by the ld.CIT(A) on pages 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned order. In other wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) in this regard. Therefore, this ground of appeal is also rejected. 15. Other grounds are general in nature which do not call for any specific adjudication. They are dismissed as such. 16. Now we take up ITA No.290/Ahd/2013 for Asstt. year 2006-07. 17. In ground no.1 and 2, Revenue has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has admitted various additional evidence/submissions without giving any opportunity to the AO, which is in contravention to Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 18. A perusal of the record would indicate that the Ld.CIT(A) has not admitted any additional evidence. The assessee has pointed out how wrong calculations have been made by the AO from impounded material inventorised as Annexure-B1-19. During the course of hearing, the ld.DR was unable to controvert which document has been entertained by the ld.CIT(A) a fresh evidence. The assessee has filed submissions no-doubt. But the submissions are based on the impounded material considered by the AO also. Thus, there was a construction or interpretation of the impounded material and not anything-else, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These are rejected. 19. Ground no.5 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books of accounts. He computed profit from unaccounted business on the money attributable to the sale of flats during the year. Thus, in other words, according to the ld.CIT(A), the income of the assessee would be assessed on the method of accountancy followed by the assessee and the revenue would be recoginised in the year in which the sales have been made by the assessee. The AO in this assessment year also did not disturb the method of accountancy, but for the unaccounted income he has adopted a different method i.e. he assessed it on receipt basis. After taking into consideration finding of the ld.CIT(A), we do not find any error because the assessee itself has offered an income of ₹ 15 crores in different years and recognized this income on sale of flats. In this year, the project was not completed. It was under construction, therefore, it cannot be said that the income has accrued to the assessee. In a given case, booking of flats may be canceled, advance taken by the assessee including on-money could be returned, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has took a view in right perspective. We do not find any error in the finding of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue. Ground no.4 is rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as per the method of accounting followed by the appellant. iii) Now as regards the third issue of the applicability of section 68/69/69C to the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that Section 69C can be invoked only when the appellant has incurred any expenditure for which he has no explanation regarding its source or the explanation offered by the appellant is not satisfactory in the opinion of the A.O. However, in the present case, the impounded material contains the detail of unaccounted sales receipts i.e. on-money and unaccounted expenditure incurred out of the said on-money and thus, the source of unaccounted expenditure gets satisfactorily explained as being the on-money and hence, Section 69C is not at all applicable. A Further, the proviso to Section 69C states that when any unexplained expenditure is deemed to be the income of the assessee, then the said unexplained expenditure shall not be allowed as a deduction and in the present case the unexplained expenditure has not been deemed to be the income of the appellant by the A.O. and hence, the proviso to Section 69C is also not at all applicable in the present case. Same way section 69 states that wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pappu Bhai 22,00,000 65 Pappu Bhai Railway 17,77,500 63 Anuj Emb 5,00,000 61B Sanjay yarn 5,00,000 60B Ayush Bhai 4,76,000 57B Snehlata GK 5,00,000 48B Vishwakarma Sanghi 2,00,000 49 Sanjay Agarwal 1,00,000 TOTAL 4,83,51,682 INCOME ASSESSED / CONFIRMED by CIT(A) /RETURNED A YEAR INCOME CONFIRMED ASSESSED / by CIT(A)/ as per RoI 2007-08 39,72,502 2008-09 85,30,320 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely applicable only when the item of credit is not explained. In the instant case the CREDITS has been considered to be ON MONEY RECEIPTS with reference to specific flat as per details available in the impounded material by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. The Assessing officer has not changed the colour of the receipts to be different than ON MONEY RECEIPT. I therefore delete the addition of ₹ 36,49,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act as the income embedded in the ton-money' is already assessed/offered From AY 2007-08 to 2010-11 as summarized in table of income assessed on page no.24 of this order. The addition of ₹ 36,49,000 is accordingly deleted. 24. With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee had sold flats in project Solitaire . It has received on-money of ₹ 88,29,000/-. Out of this on-money, assessee has incurred expenditure as well as investment. Such amounts have been calculated at ₹ 51,80,000/-. He only observed that if investment was found to be more than the on-money receipts, then investment will be added. The ld.AO trea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom page no.24 to 29 and page no.35 in the Asstt.Year 2007-08 as well as at page no.25 to 29 in the Asstt.Year 2009-10. A perusal of the finding would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) has not entertained any additional evidence rather, re-appreciated the seized material. The assessee has prepared a chart explaining entries in the seized material which has been considered by the ld.CIT(A). 31. We have also gone through the material placed before the ld.CIT(A). Let us take first item considered by the AO in the Asstt.Year 2007-08. According to the assessee on page no.48 of the impounded diary B1-19 an entry of ₹ 17,963/- was available which has been read by the ld.AO as 1,79,63,000/- on receipt side. We have gone through photo-copy of this page, which is available at page no.189 of the paper book filed by the Revenue. Entry is 17963/00 . After verifying this entry with related details, the ld.CIT(A) has observed that it is to be read as 17,963/ . After perusal of this entry, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) has not entertained any additional evidence, rather reappreciated existing material available on the file of the AO. Thus, there is no force in both these grounds of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SUB TOTAL 7,25,95,588 LESS/ADD: Mistakes apparent 47B Dharmin Bhai- A land has been purchased from this person for ₹ 1,77,20,000/- for which 45,00,000/- + 28,50,000/was paid in CASH Rest of the payment was adjusted against SALE of FLAT in SOLITAIRE Apt ₹ 1,24,40,000/-. There is difference in calculation of the amount by the AO. The amount works out to ₹ 1,03,70,000/- whereas the AO has worked out ₹ 1,38,53,000/-. 34,83,000 49 BHUSHA BHAI- This is Land Purchased for RADHAPURAM VARELI. This is expenditure of the project and not an investment. There seems to be a total mistake of ₹ 7,00,000/-. The Total Works out to ₹ 2,44,98,625/- as against ₹ 2,51,98,626/considered by AO 7,00,000 46 Usha Ben S NO 528. This is a land Purchased for investment. The total amount paid is ₹ 79,45,000/- whereas the AO has considered ₹ 77,75,000/- 1,70,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the appellant company. He had returned a sum of ₹ 17,963/- to the appellant so as to make a a/c of ₹ 3,00,000/- in round up figure. ₹ 3 Lacs was paid to ShriJanak Mistry on17-03-2007 which is entered on page number 30 of the paper book submitted by the appellant. Page number 33 contains details of payment made to Shri Janak Mistry on various dates and the same page contains details of VAT payment of ₹ 2 82037 and balance amount of ₹ 17,963/-which was considered by the AO as ₹ 17963000/-. This is factual mistake committed by the learned AO. This - was contended before the Assessing Officer also that the amount is not ₹ 1,79,63,000/- but actual figure of ₹ 17,963/-. On going through the impounded serial no 33 and 48 and the challan on page 36 of PB as submitted by the appellant, it is found that the contention of the Appellant is correct and the amount is ₹ 17,963/- only in real terms and not to be deciphered or decoded as ₹ 1,79,63,000/- by suffixing '000 to the figure. Page No 47B (₹ 1,38,53,000/-): The Assessing Officer had considered this item of entry as investment at ₹ 1,38,53,000/- (Total of P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unts from the impounded annexure was verified and found to be taken twice. Page No 48B (₹ 6,80,000/-): The Assessing Officer had considered this item of entry as investment at ₹ 6,80,000/-. The appellant submitted that this is repayment received from the party on a/c of LOAN given in 2004 on different dates as mentioned in the impounded annexure. Subsequently this amount was received back during the year under consideration as is evident from the impounded annexure. Further this amount is of receipt and not of payment. The impounded annexure was verified and the submission of the appellant was found to be factually correct. These Items have been wrongly treated as part of investment instead of receipts hence required to be reduced from the value of investment taken by the Assessing Officer. The correct value of investment + expenditure works out to ₹ 5,70,14,625/-, which is less than the GROSS ON MONEY receipts, hence the source of investment + expenditure gets explained from the ON MONEY collected recorded in the same impounded annexure. Thus, the appellant would get a relief of ₹ 3,35,26,000/-on account of mistakes committed by the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chart prepared by the Assessing Officer, the appellant had submitted a chart depicting the mistakes and wrong consideration of items: Particulars Amount (Rs) Amount(Rs) TOTAL of the TABLE No 1 3 on Page No 7-11 and 36-38 of the Asst Order 9,79,10,643 Less: Item considered twice 54BGhanshyam Bhai The transaction pertains to sale of GOLDEN PLAZA SHOPS which are considered at Page No 57B-Golden Plaza Shop 1,14,12,000 1,14,12,000 SUB TOTAL 8,64,98,643 LESS: ITEMS of RECEIPTS considered by AO as investment. 66 Jayesh Bhai -Loan receipts Page 187 of PB) 8,00,000 SUB TOTAL of LOAN RECEIPTS 8,00,000 59 Sanjay Bhai YARNWALA Sale of YARN receipts (Page 102 of PB) 13,45,000 51 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80.81+0.31=81.12 and the total is put at 114.12. These very figures are also available on marked serial no 54B. Hence I find the contention of the appellant as correct. The items, which are shown as RECEIPTS in the impounded annexure, had been considered as PAYMENTS is the contention of the appellant with regard to the following items of entries. a) GURUDUTTii (LOAN a/c) ₹ 40,00,000/- marked page serial no 43 (Page No 100 of PB): There is only one entry of ₹ 40 00 of 24/12/08 on the receipt side of the note book. The contention of the appellant is therefore correct. b) Girish bhai ₹ 44,21,700/- marked as page serial no 45 (Page No 105 of PB): There is one entry on receipt side of 11 00 and three entries on the payment side being 23 00 (27/08/08), 7 00 (13/09/08) and 3 21700 (Int paid upto 31.12.08). The total of Receipt side + payment site works out to 44,21,700/-. Thus ₹ 11 lacs is part of receipt side. The contention of the appellant is correct. c) Pramod babu ₹ 44,72,000/- marked serial no 45B (Page No 104 of PB): There are three entries on receipt side of 40 (5/08/08) + 64 (26/08/08) + 1 73 (Int 6.10.07 to 23/6/08) making a total of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,15,643/- in the Asstt.Year 2009-10. However, a perusal of the CIT(A) s finding extracted (supra) would indicate that figure adopted by the AO are not based on correct construction of seized material. The assessee has pointed out factual inaccuracy which has been considered by the ld.CIT(A). We have also noticed this aspect from the seized material. The assessee has pointed out that entry of ₹ 1,14,12,000/- in the Asstt.Year 2009-10 has been made twice by the ld.AO in table no.3 on page 36-38 of the assessment order. This aspect has been appraised from the seized material also. The ld.CIT(A) has considered it an error at the end of the AO. No material was brought to our notice pointing out as to how the ld.CIT(A) has erred in construing this figure. Therefore, after going through the order of the ld.CIT(A), we do not see any error in it. 36. As far assessment of income from the on-money receipt is concerned, we have already adjudicated this issue in the Asstt.Year 2008-09, wherein we have upheld the finding of the ld.CIT(A) that gross-receipt of on-money cannot be taxed. Only income part embedded on this receipt is to be taxed. In view of our finding in the Asstt.Year 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
