TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (1) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est. The income from business consisted of hardware run under the name and style of M/s. Gupta Industries and the interest income came from money lending. It is a matter of record that separate books of accounts were not maintained by the assessee for these two sources of income. 4. The P&L Account filed alongwith the revised return reflected interest income to the tune of Rs. 33,899 net. The ITO noted that in case the aforesaid interest income was not considered then the P&L Account would reflect a loss from business from Gupta Industries which would work out to Rs. 20,299. He also took note of the fact that separate sets of books were not being maintained in respect of the business income and the income from interest and the assessee was not able to explain how expenses to the tune of Rs. 26,179 were claimed against the gross profit of Rs. 5,880 from business activities. The ITO also took note of the fact that the details of expenditure had not been filed by the assessee. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, he took the income from Gupta Industries at Nil and subjected to tax the interest income amounting to Rs. 33,899. 5. Being aggrieved with the assessment order dt.28th March....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,50,000 over a period of 10 years starting from 1969-70 onwards and it was in this direction that a revised return was filed on 10th Sept., 1986. It was stated before the Assessing Officer that the matter was discussed with various tax authorities and the assessee was made to understand that his scheme of offering the income for taxation would be accepted. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the aforesaid explanation on the ground that there was no material on record to show any such offer on the part of the assessee and its acceptance by the tax authorities. The Assessing Officer specifically referred to the fact that a letter dt.23rd Dec., 1985purported to have been written by the assessee was not available on record and neither was a copy of the same furnished to him during the course of the assessment proceedings. In view of the aforesaid facts, the ITO first of all added the difference of Rs. 1,23,669 as according to him the same represented "unexplained investment" of the assessee during the assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also took note of the fact that the sales had not been properly accounted for by the assessee whereas the seized material....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lthough the correct fact was that these had been filed in response to notices under s. 148 pursuant to the raid carried out on 1st Aug., 1979. We may mention that the learned counsel for the respondent straight away accepted this fact contending that the observations recorded by the CIT(A) to the effect that the revised returns were filed under the Amnesty Scheme were not correct. The learned Departmental Representative thereafter proceeded to contend that the benefit of the additional income subject to tax in the preceding assessment years could not be allowed to the assessee in explaining the difference in the balance sheet when there is no finding by any of the authorities below vis-a-vis the availability of funds relating to the said additional income and whether these had been spent or they continued to remain with the assessee and if so, the assets in which they stood reflected. In concluding his arguments on ground No. 1 the Departmental Representative contended that the matter be restored back to the file of any of the authorities below for a decision de novo on merits. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the CIT(A).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....behalf of the assessee. Then again there is a reference in the assessment order to a letter dt.23rd Dec., 1985purported to have been filed with the Department whereby the assessee offered for tax a stipulated amount for asst. yrs. 1969-70 to 1980-81. The Assessing Officer specifically mentioned that this letter was not available on the record and even during the course of the hearing before him the assessee could not furnish any proof of filing the said letter. A copy of this letter has been placed at page 17 of the paper book, but incidentally there is no reference to it in the order passed by the CIT(A). In the light of the aforesaid observations recorded by us we consider it necessary to set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) vis-a-vis the specific issue raised in ground No. 1 and restore the matter once again to his file for a decision de novo. In the view that we have taken it would not be necessary for us to deal with the authorities cited at the bar by the learned counsel in support of his arguments. The first ground in the Revenue's appeal is accordingly allowed, for statistical purposes. 15. The second ground in the appeal pertains to an addition of Rs. 20,000 made by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same to Rs. 20,000 taking note of the fact that separate books of accounts had not been maintained for the distinct businesses, the claim on account of expenditure pertained to both types of businesses and a perusal of the P&L account showed that a good part of the expenditure was of an admissible nature. 19. The aforesaid order was passed by the AAC on22nd May, 1979and shortly thereafter on1st Aug., 1979there was a raid at the assessee's premises. A further "revised return" was filed on10th Dec., 1986declaring an income of Rs. 33,600. The Assessing Officer has accepted the aforesaid returned income, but thereafter proceeded to make three separate additions and which are the subject-matter of the present appeal filed by the Revenue inasmuch as the CIT(A) has deleted these additions. In ground No. 3 before the Tribunal the Revenue has raised the issue of an addition of Rs. 17,534 being the income from interest added by the Assessing Officer, but deleted by the CIT(A) on the ground that the interest income shown by the assessee was much higher, viz., Rs. 33,899. It is quite apparent that the assessee is seeking to take advantage of the difference between the original return and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT vs. Padma Timber Depot (1987) 67 CTR (AP) 109 : (1988) 169 ITR 646 (AP). The relevant ground in the Revenue's appeal is accordingly rejected. ITA No. 2113 (Del) of 1989; Asst. yr. 1976-77: 23. In this appeal only two grounds have been raised and the first of these pertains to the addition of Rs. 21,620 made by the ITO on account of interest on money lending business and which was subsequently deleted by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings determined interest income at 3% of the amount which appeared in the balance sheet, viz. Rs. 7,20,666. This resulted in an addition of Rs. 21,620. On further appeal before the CIT(A), it was contended that additional income of Rs. 21,830 had been offered for tax vis-a-vis the original return of income. It was also submitted that the return was filed under the Amnesty Scheme. Taking note of the aforesaid, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. 24. This issue came up for consideration before us in asst. yr. 1975-76 as well when after considering the rival submissions and perusing the material on record we have restored the matter back to the file of the first appellate authority. The facts are more or less....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 14,18,682.81 TDS (As per last year) 10,070.00 Cash-in-hand 27,440.00 Stock (B.S.) 22,475.00 Drawings (Personal) 7,500.00 . 14,86,167.81 Less: Old balance 13,92,275.96 . Income shown for 1977-78 36,000.00 14,28,275.96 . . 57,892.00" 28. The Assessing Officer in working out the aforesaid addition took note of the fact that the books of accounts were incomplete and the assessee had not brought forth any evidence to justify the aforesaid loans/debtors. The Assessing Officer also took note of the absence of any argument being advanced on behalf of the assessee. In the ultimate analysis he added back the sum of Rs. 57,892 to the assessee's income on account of the unexplained addition to assets/loans/debtors. Being aggrieved the assessee came up in appeal before the CIT(A) and before whom a statement of affairs/balance sheet as on31st March, 1977was filed. On the basis of the aforesaid compilation, the CIT(A) proceeded to delete the addition observing in the process as follows: "The appellant has been able to compile a statement of affairs/balance sheet as on31st March, 1977from the copies of the seized material which shows no unexplained assets. The position is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r had not been so directed to be added. The submission in other words was that there will be no objection on the part of the assessee if the addition to that extent was retained. 30. After examining the rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter would have to be reconsidered by the CIT(A) in the light of our observations and for which purpose we restore the matter back to the file of the first appellate authority. 31. Ground No. 2 in the appeal pertains to an addition of Rs. 21,620 on account of interest made by the Assessing Officer and which was deleted by the CIT(A). 32. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that inasmuch as the facts pertaining to this ground are identical and having been already considered by us in the earlier appeals, a similar direction would have to be given, namely, to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on lines already indicated. ITA No. 2115 (Del) of 1989; Asst. yr. 1978-79: 33. The following two grounds are raised in the appeal pertaining to the asst. yr. 1978-79: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in: (1) deleting the addition of Rs. 15,108 being the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was pointed out that the loan debtors amounted to Rs. 10,72,202 and interest at 3% on that figure be computed. This pleas was accepted by the CIT(A) and the addition of Rs. 43,143 made by the Assessing Officer was reduced to Rs. 32,166. 40. After hearing both the parties, we decline to interfere with the decision taken by the CIT(A) for the reasons stated in the order of the immediately preceding assessment year. The only ground in the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 2117 (Del) of 1989; Asst. yr. 1980-81: 41. The following effective grounds are raised in this appeal: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in: (i) directing to apply a rate of 1% on the turnover of Rs. 58,91,106 of M/s Shiv Loha Bhandar. (ii) directing to delete the interest under ss. 139(8) and 217." 42. The assessee declared income from M/s Shiv Loha Bhandar at 0.75% of the turnover of Rs. 58,91,106. The detailed reasons recorded by the ITO vis-a-vis the aforesaid source of income are discussed at length in the assessment order and these have not been challenged by the assessee. On further appeal before the CIT(A) it was contended that determination of the commiss....