TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises of Shri Gulshan Kumar Juneja, husband of Smt. Usha Juneja-partner of the firm. Certain documents were recovered from the premises and on the basis of particular document mainly Annexure P the income was assessed at Rs. 3,50,000 for assessment year 1986-87 and Rs. 2,42,320 for assessment year 1987-88. As per the arguments advanced no material was brought on record to show that the documents pertained to the assessee-firm and that the entries reflected therein related to it. In fact admittedly the aforesaid documents were written by Shri Gulshan Kumar Juneja and not by any partner of the assessee-firm. Apart from the fact that it did not pertain to the firm no cognizance could be taken of the entries reflected therein. The assessee's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced on the aforesaid documents much less the income assessed on the strength of the same. This applies for both the assessment years where the facts are identical except for the difference in figures mentioned in the documents and the income assessed. The learned DR on the other hand, vehemently opposed the stand of the learned AR. Reading the order of the Assessing Officer it was pointed out that the Assessing Officer found difference in the sales as shown in the profit loss account vis-a-vis the ones recorded in the books of account. The explanation that it was a totalling error could not be accepted. On the other hand, the documents seized were from the premises of the assessee which were the registered office of the firm. Shri Gulshan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm could be considered in the hands of the assessee, and if so, could the same be made the sole basis for estimating the income completely ignoring the books of account as maintained by the assessee. Annexure P as referred to above read as under--- ANNEXURE P FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87 1-4-85to31-3-86 Cash in hand 5,71,742 Investment 8,52,200 Stock 2,38,981 Payment 1,21,310 Bank 55,900 ----------------------- Credit 2,26,198 9,73,510 --------------------- ------------------------ 10,92,821 9,73,510 --------------------- 1,19,311 Clean Profit --------------------- 10,800 Pigmi Saving ---------------------- 1,30,111 ---------------------- Actual profit Previous investment 8,52,200 1,19,311 Clean ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount has been reflected against the plot mentioned as 8, Sector-18. From the preciseness of the figures relating to the amounts against unambiguous description of assets/liabilities (payment), the document cannot be dubbed as dumb one. 4. This brings us to the relevancy and admissibility of the documents under the law. It is true that any document, valuable article or thing found in the possession or control of any person during the course of search is limited in its scope and is restricted to proceedings under section 132 of the Act but it cannot be said that the aforesaid document is not relevant and cannot be used in the regular assessment proceedings if the facts so warrant. The document or piece of evidence as found have to be examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e statement of Shri Gulshan Kumar recorded under section 132 (4A) of the Act has neither been referred to by the assessing officer nor has been produced by the assessee on the plea that it was not made available to him. The learned DR was also not aware whether any clarification was sought from Shri Gulshan Kumar Juneja on the document at the time of search. Further no serious attempt was made by the ITO to examine Shri Gulshan Kumar Juneja during the course of search proceedings. The assessee also did not seem to have extended any cooperation in this regard. 6. As regard entries in the document as stated earlier, they depict the financial affairs. On comparison of figures with that of assessee's balance-sheet we find that not a single en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve light we find that for assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 the Assessing Officer found certain discrepancies in sales and purchases as mentioned in the order. For assessment year 1986-87 as mentioned in the assessment order certain discrepancies were noted in the sales by the Assessing Officer. This was stated to be on account of totalling in calculation made, According to the Assessing Officer the sales totalled up to Rs. 40,21,755. The explanation furnished by the assessee was not accepted. For assessment year 1987-88 reference was made to Annexure A-6 and certain challans as per which the purchases to the extent of Rs. 73,000 were not accounted for. Similar was the position in regard to the sales which totalled up to Rs. 40,01,182. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
