TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the search operation carried out in the business premises of the assessee. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee is rejected, and the ground of the appeal of the assessee on this issue is dismissed. - Decided against assessee. Undisclosed income on account of seized diary - Held that:- The peak amount of credit and debit entries on the seized papers amounting to ₹ 14,35,666/- could be validity taxed in the hands of the assessee. In our view, there is no justification for further adding net profit at the rate of 5% on the gross receipts on the seized papers of the assessee. There is also no justification for the AO to add the entire receipts side of these seized paper, and not considering the peak of the credit and debit entries. In this view of the matter, we hold that the addition should be sustained to the extent of ₹ 14,35,666/- as against ₹ 19,42,771/- sustained by the learned CIT(A) - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Excess claim of Ujjain division - Held that:- The assessee has claimed a loss of ₹ 13.23 lakhs in its Ujjain division with regard to the work done for road construction, whereas the exact amount of loss determined by the PWD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of the carting income of the assessee, as appearing in its ledger account, wherein the assessee has charged carting income on various trips made by it on behalf of others, and complete details of the parties to whom the vehicles were given on hire has been detailed therein. He submitted that no discrepancy could be pointed out on behalf of the Revenue in the details of carting income account in the ledger of the assessee by the Revenue. 8. The learned DR has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel of the assessee. He submitted that the CIT(A) has passed well reasoned order on this issue. He submitted that although the assessee has earned and declared carting receipt from the said vehicles, but CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee has not specified the vehicles, which were leased out and what were the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. He submitted that in the absence of evidence and details, the AO was justified in refusing to give extra depreciation to the assessee, and normal depreciation was allowed to the assessee. He relied on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Gupta Global Exim (P) Ltd., 305 ITR 132 (SC) referred by the CIT(A) in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome (seized Diary Annx A/1-6) ₹ 19,42,771/- 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have made above said disallowance/additions. 13. These grounds of the appeal of the assessee consist of two parts. Firstly, the claim of bad debts disallowed by the AO amounting to ₹ 13,36,532/-. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee with the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 323 ITR 397 (SC). The learned DR submitted that the assessee has not made this claim at the time of filing of the original return, and has made the claim for the first time after the search was made in the premises of the assessee, and therefore, the claim of the assessee is not entertainable, and rightly rejected by the Revenue authorities. 14. We have considered rival submissions and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that admittedly, this claim was not made by the assessee at the time of original assessment, and therefore, there is no justification for making this claim after the search operation carried out in the business pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding following additions/disallowances. (a) Depreciation ₹ 2,14,938/- (b) Undisclosed income (seized Diary Annx A/1-6) ₹ 12,43,447/- 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have made above said disallowance/additions. 19. These grounds of the appeal of the assessee consists of two parts. First part is regarding claim of higher depreciation of ₹ 2,14,938/-. Both parties before us submitted that the issue is identical with the issue in the assessee s appeal for the earlier assessment year 2003-2004, in IT(SS)A No.178/Ahd/2009. We have considered rival submissions. In view of our decision in the foregoing paras of this order while disposing of the appeal of the assessee IT(SS)A.No.178/Ahd/2009 for the asstt.year 2003-2004, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the ground no.2.1 with regard to depreciation claim of ₹ 2,14,938/- is allowed. 20. The second part of this ground of the appeal is regarding the addition of undisclosed income on account of seized diary amounting to ₹ 12,43,447/-. Both the parties before us submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s claimed a loss of ₹ 13.23 lakhs in its Ujjain division with regard to the work done for road construction, whereas the exact amount of loss determined by the PWD was for ₹ 10,98,087/-. The difference was claimed by the assessee as business loss. In our view, the actual loss being ₹ 10,98,087/-, the balance loss of ₹ 2,24,982/- was rightly disallowed and the issue is accordingly decided against the assessee. The second issue in this ground is regarding excess depreciation on vehicles. Both parties submitted before us that the issue is identical with the issue in the appeal of the assessee for the earlier assessment year 2003-2004. We have considered rival submissions. In view of our decision in the foregoing paras of this order in IT(SS)A.No.178/Ahd/2009 for A.Y.2003-2004, the issue is decided in favour of the assessee, and the depreciation on vehicle of ₹ 1,35,294/- is allowed. The third issue is regarding unrecorded receipt found in the seized diaries and the addition made of ₹ 8,51,182/-. Both the parties before us submitted that the issue is identical with the issue in the assessee s appeal for the earlier assessment year 2004-2005. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appeal of the assessee in the foregoing paras of this order for A.Y.2006- 2007 in IT(SS)A.No.181/Ahd/2009, we find that the loss on account of acceptance of lesser claim by the PWD authorities is not allowable as business loss of the assessee, and accordingly, the loss of ₹ 1,25,442/- is not allowed. IT(SS)A.No.73, 74 and 75/Ahd/2010 for A.Y.2004-2005, 2005- 2006 and 2006-2007 (Revenue s appeals) 29. The learned DR submitted that the grounds of the appeals of the Revenue are identical in all these three years as under: i) The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case in restricting For A.Y.2004-2005 addition of ₹ 19,13,177/- on account of undisclosed income instead of addition made ₹ 1,01,42,101/- For A.Y.2005-2006 addition of ₹ 1,27,13,285/- to the extent of ₹ 12,43,477/- on account of undisclosed income. For A.Y.2006-2007 addition of ₹ 54,89,466/- to the extent of ₹ 8,51,182/- on account of undisclosed income. 30. Both parties before us submitted that the issue of addition on account of entries on seized papers/diary in these appeals of the Revenue is covered and connected with the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
