Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2012 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 165 - HC - Income TaxAddition as unexplained investment in excess/shortage of stock - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- No material has been brought to show that the findings of Tribunal are perverse that departmental personnel had not followed any of the basic steps of stock checking and had proceeded to inventorise the stock in a haphazard manner - the revenue was directed to place on record the documents or material on the basis of which it can be said that the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal are mentioned wrong but till the date of final hearing of the appeal the revenue has not been able to produce any document or material to buttress its challenge to the Tribunal’s findings - that no substantial question of law arises - in favour of assessee. Disallowance of the expenses - ITAT deleted the disallowance - Held that:- The seized material should be followed in its entirety and both the receipts and the payments are to be taken into consideration and it would be unjust and contrary to the principles of income tax law to take note of only the income part reflected in the seized material, excluding the expenditure part reflected in the same seized material, provided the expenditure part is allowable as business expenditure - as the expenses represent turning charges, overtime payments, payments to temporary workers, remuneration to excise consultants, incentives etc.are expenses incurred by the assessee for the purpose of the business deletion of disallowed expenses is thus warranted - in favour of assessee. Levy of surcharge u/s 113 - ITAT deleted the levy - Held that:- According to the judgment of in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh N. Gupta (2008 (1) TMI 396 - SUPREME COURT ) it was held that “even without the proviso under Section 113, the Finance Act, 2001 was applicable to a block assessment year passed under Chapter XIV-B. The amendment made by inserting the proviso to Section 113 was merely clarificatory and that the Finance Act of the year in which the search was initiated would apply" - Tribunal therefore was in error in holding that since the search was conducted on 29.08.1996, at a time when the proviso to Section 113 was not in existence, the levy of surcharge was not proper - against assessee.
|