9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om manufacture and sale of rice and its by-product. During search at the premises of M/s Partap Bhangu Solvex (P) Ltd., village Pasiana, a diary containing the details of rice bran purchased by that company from various persons including the appellant was seized. In the said diary there were entries pertaining to purchases made from the appellant and on being confronted, the assessee vide letter dated 24.3.1995 admitted the correctness of said entries and surrendered a sum of Rs.7.50 lacs as undisclosed income subject to no penalty and no prosecution. The basis of surrender by the assessee was under-billing in the rates of by-products and sale of the by-products outside the books of account. Accordingly, the amount surrendered was taxed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .50 lacs of income subject to no penalty was made by the assessee on 24.3.95 i.e. Just one week before the end of the previous year. Thus, there was no scope of suffering loss up to 24.3.95. Most of the sales are before the said date. No evidence has been produced before the revenue authorities to support the claim of loss. On the other hand, the assessee has itself offered to surrender income of Rs.7,50,000. Even if there is no loss or profit on the sales as recorded in the books of account, the income of the assessee ought to have been more than Rs.7,50,000 as per its own admission before the ADIT (Inv.), Patiala. The mere fact that in some other cases the Department has failed to take cognizance of the surrender made by them before the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessee submitted that surrendered income could not have been added to the income of the assessee without taking into account the loss incurred as rightly held by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer has not found any defect in the books of account and in such a situation, book result could not be ignored. There being no evidence justifying addition, mere surrender could not be basis of the addition. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that in another case in similar circumstances, being order dated 12.5.2004 passed in ITA NO.663/Chandi/98 (Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Patiala Vs. G.R.Traders, Said Kheri Road, Rajpura), the Tribunal upheld the deletion by the CIT(A) with the following observations:- "We have hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts. We, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, are of the view that the CIT(A) while deleting the impugned addition has passed a well-reasoned and speaking order which does not need any interference from our side. We uphold the same and reject the ground of the revenue". We are unable to accept the submission. The Tribunal has clearly found that income disclosed by the assessee was not correct and invoices issued by the assessee were not genuine on its own admission. The surrender being voluntarily, no further evidence was required and surrender itself could have been made the basis of addition. The said finding is not shown in any manner erroneous. As regards deletion in another case, we are not required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
