TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... une, 2000. Therefore, there was no disclosed income by the firm in pursuance to the proceedings taken by the Department. Aggrieved with the determined undisclosed taxable income of Rs. 73,26,112 the appellant-firm preferred first appeal before the CIT(A). 3. The AO while completed the assessment under s. 158BC(c) in the case of this firm for the block period from 1st April, 1990 to 23rd June, 2000, computed and determined the undisclosed income as follows: "Sl. No. Asst. yr. Addition based on Addition under the head Amounts (Rs.) added as undisclosed 1. No specific year is mentioned Assessing authority's estimation after rejection of DVO's report unlawfully referred to after the survey. Investment in civil construction work in the factory 33,16,305 2. -do- Based upon loose sheets together seized and marked as B.S.-32, from the residence of one of the partner of the firm. Investment in purchase of machineries 18,08,759 3. 2000-01 Bunch of documents impounded under s. 131(3) after the survey. Suppression of receipt from ice selling fish prawn processing 22,01,04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Tribunal 1-3 3 2. N.K. Mohnot vs. Dy. CIT Ors. (1995) 128 CTR (Mad) 247 : (1995) 215 ITR 275 (Mad) 4-6 3 3. CIT vs. Mool Chand Salecha (2002) 174 CTR (Raj) 1 : (2002) 256 ITR 730 (Raj) 7-8 2 4. Prakash Tulsidas vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 68 TTJ (Nag) 479 : (2000) 73 ITD 444 (Nag) 9-11 3 5. Indore Construction (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 68 TTJ (Ind) 420 : (1999) 71 ITD 128 (Ind) 12-15 4 6. Urmila Chandak Ors. vs. Asstt. CIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Mad) 758 16-22 7 7. V.V.S. Alloys Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 68 TTJ (All) 516 23-25 3 8. Written submission in addition to grounds of appeal filed before the learned CIT(A), Cuttack. 26-39 14 Total 39" 7. The said case law are analysed as under : N.K. Mohnot vs. Dy. CIT Ors. —In this case, it has been held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that s. 133A(6) does not authorise the authorities to impound and remove any of the documents found in the course of survey in view of emphatic bar imposed by s. 133A(4) which is absolute and unqual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person' who is required to file the return and the block period was whole deficient; assessment made on the basis of said notice was bad in law and void ab initio. CIT vs. Tirupati Oil Corporation (2001) 167 CTR (Bom) 77 : (2001) 248 ITR 194 (Bom)—In this case it has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as follows : "A registered firm is a taxable unit under the IT Act, 1961, and if the AO wants to proceed under Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act with regard to the undisclosed income of the partner for the purposes of making block assessment on the firm, then the AO is required to invoke s. 158BD of the IT Act, 1961. Held accordingly, that the block assessment made on the firm without following the procedure under s. 158BD was bad in law." 8. Harping on the aforesaid judgment the learned counsel further argued that in this case there is no observation of technicalities by the Revenue authorities. No Panchnama was signed and the assessment order was completed under s. 158BC(c). Notices have been issued following all chapters according to the whimsical approach of the AO. Therefore, in all fairness the assessment should be quashed. 9. On the other hand, the learned Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y applied and have been duly reflected in the order of the CIT(A). 13. Going through the relevant portion of the order of the CIT(A) we find that the learned counsel has taken shelter in the case law reported in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla Ors. AIR 1998 SC 1406. The Hon'ble apex Court in this case laid down the principle vide para 8 that loose sheets of papers are not books as contemplated under s. 34 of the Evidence Act and hence, cannot be the basis of an admissible evidence in a prosecution. Although, the CIT(A) has written in his order that the AO was only concerned for calculating the discrepancy due to the simple reasoning of non-filing return at a point of time, yet he sustained the discrepancy of Rs. 7,34,638 as has been computed by the AO. Even without going to the technicalities, this addition is not sustainable as the ground taken by the AO is simply non-filing of return for the asst. yr. 1995-96. There was no bar for the AO to ask for a computation of income even though the stipulated time for filing of return has been time-barred. But, he has not done so. As is evident from the records he does not appear to have obtained any permission/approval for completing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
