TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of depression) stating ₹ 1.99 crores as stock based on paper Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 found during the search at his residential premises though no such stock was physically found by the Department inspite of the fact that search operations were carried out at the various places of business, premises, godowns owned and hired by the appellant. (b)in not carrying out any independent investigation regarding possession of the alleged stock. (c )in drawing adverse inference from extracts of statements made by accountants and other persons and in not accepting the affidavit of Navinchandra Sobhagchand Mehta in full and in misinterpreting statements made by Jhaverchand Momaya, Chief Accountant. (d)in not accepting that the notings on seized material were only estimates of requirements in the future period. (e )in relying on judicial pronouncements in BPT proceedings which were irrelevant to the matter. 2. Without prejudice in not accepting the alternative plea of the appellant to work additions based on discrepancy if any between quantity of stock as reflected in these papers and actual stock found during the search. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal of the seized sheets further shows that complete details of stock, viz., description, quantity, rate, unit of measurement, total of each item of stock and the total at the end of each seized sheet have been given. The aforesaid position of stock as reflected in the seized sheets was confronted, at the time of search itself, first to Shri Javerchand K. Momaya who has reportedly been working as Chief Accountant of the assessee-firm for the last 38 years. His statement was recorded at 7.00 a.m. on 22-11-1995 under section 132(4) at the business premises of the assessee-firm, i.e., 395/97, Narshi Natha Street, Mumbai-400009 followed by the statement of Shri Prataprai M. Sanghvi recorded at 9 a.m. on the same date and at the same place. 5. As stated above, statement of Shri Javerchand Momaya was recorded at 7.00 a.m. on 22-11-1995 under section 132(4) at the business premises of the assessee-firm, i.e., 395/97, Narshi Natha Street, Mumbai-400009. Relevant questions put to him and the answers given by him, as recorded in the said statement, are as under: Q.1 Please confirm that the above oath has been administered to you. Also enlist your details and functions as employees of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amend your above statement? Ans. No. Whatever stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have given this statement voluntarily without any undue influence, threat or coercion. I have read the statement and certify that it has been correctly recorded. [Emphasis supplied] 6. Shri Prataprai Sanghvi, partner in the assessee-firm was also con- fronted with the above papers at the time of search itself at 9 a.m. on 22-11-1995 at the business premises of the assessee-firm, i.e., 395/97, Narshi Natha Street, Mumbai-400 009 immediately after recording the statement of Shri Javerchand Momaya, Chief Accountant at 7 a.m. on 22- 11-1995. Statement of Shri Prataprai Sanghvi, partner in the assessee- firm was recorded under section 132(4). The relevant questions put to him and the answers given by him, as recorded in the said statement, are as under: Q.2 During the course of search proceedings at your residence, certain loose papers were found which have been brought by you to this premises for explanation of the same with reference to the books of a/c kept here. The same is being seized as per Annexure A/1 to the panchnama dated 22-11-95 containing pages 1 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice) and have to state that these stock statements referred to pages 13, 14, 15 and 16 of Annexure A/1 are unaccounted and is other than the stock found at premises referred to in Q.No. 5. Q.6 Where are the above referred stocks lying? Ans. These stocks totalling ₹ 1.99 crore are unaccounted and to buy peace with the Department I offer a sum of ₹ 2 crores as unaccounted income of M/s. Hiralal Maganlal Co. for the assessment year 1996-97. Q. 8 Do you have to state anything else? Ans. No. Whatever stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have given the statement voluntarily without any undue influence, threat or coercion. I have read the statement and certify that it has been correctly recorded. [Emphasis supplied] 7. The search proceedings, as aforesaid, make it amply clear that (i) seized sheets, i.e., pages 13 to 16 of Annexure A/1 found at the time of search were nothing but stock statements; (ii) Shri Prataprai Sanghvi admitted categorically that the stock of ₹ 1.99 crores as shown in the seized sheets was in addition to the stock of ₹ 1.44 found in other godowns; (iii) Shri Prataprai Sanghvi further admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the said affidavit, were prepared to discuss various issues with regard to import of goods, sources thereof, making finance available for the same and storage thereof. (ii)He averred in the said affidavit that he was present in the office on the date of search at the premises of Hiralal Maganlal Co. from 10 A.M. to 10 P.M. on 21-11-1995 when the officials of the Department were present for conducting search. He further avers that although he was associated with the other members of his office in helping the officials present, none of them asked any question to me about the papers in question. He further states in the said affidavit that no questions were asked as to the reasons about these papers and therefore there is no question of myself being made available of and any opportunity of explaining the contents thereof to the officials present at the time of search. (iii)Shri Jhaverchand Momaya was not in Bombay for the last seven days prior to search and hence he could not communicate with him in this behalf. 10. After the receipt of the affidavit signed by Shri Navinchandra Mehta, the Assessing Officer examined the said Shri Mehta once again under section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration was not out of free will and was made by Mr. Sanghvi under compulsion. (ii)Shri Sanghvi was not allowed to contract any other partners of the firm and his declaration was obtained by making incorrect representation of facts including the four pages referred to above. It was further stated that it was in confused state of mind that Mr. Sanghvi was compelled to make the statement. Had be been made aware of correct state of affairs, he would not, according to the assessee, have made such a type of statement. (iii)The search proceedings had started in the early morning and continued throughout the day. Persons were not allowed to speak with each other and not even partners, Accountant and godown staff members. It was further stated that Shri Sanghvi was late in the evening brought to the office of the firm and was forced to make a statement of confession in the early morning of 22-11-1995. It was alleged that Shri Sanghvi was weak minded person and went into depression on early morning of 22-11-1995. Shri Sanghvi was not keeping mentally fit and therefore his statement obtained under coercion should not be taken seriously and as correct statement. (iv)It was reiterate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 1.39 crores. The assessee contended that if it was accepted that the value shown in those statements (seized sheets) represented market value of the stock and estimated margin of profit was removed from such stock valuation, the cost of the stock of the goods shown in the seized sheets would be more or less the same as the value of stock shown in the books of account. Part F : The assessee submitted that it is the difference in the book value of stock as recorded in the books and the value of stock as recorded in the seized sheets that could alone be added. It was pleaded by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that, without prejudice to other submissions, it was only the difference between the book value of stock and value of stock recorded in the seized sheets that could, at the most, be considered and added to the income of the assessee which the assessee agreed and was willing to offer for taxation to buy peace at a reasonable cost. 12. In support of the appeal, the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the same submissions which had been made before the Assessing Officer and stated above. He has also filed written statement of facts and submissions alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng information provided by the search party to him; three, statement of Shri Prataprai Sanghvi was recorded at the time when none of the remaining four partners, namely, S/Shri Ishwarbhai, Madhusudan, Chandrakant and Haresh Sanghvi was present; four, the actual stock found at the time of search was not commensurate with the unaccounted stock declared by Shri Prataprai Sanghvi in his statement and hence his statement was not reliable; five, the statement made by Shri Prataprai Sanghvi was subsequently retracted by filing a return of income in which lower undisclosed income was shown, affidavit of Shri Navinchandra Mehta, an employee of the Hiralal Maganlal group and written submissions of the assessee-firm as filed before the Assessing Officer; and, six delay in filing the retraction was due to the advice of the Chartered Accountant who had advised the assessee to file retraction along with the return of income. He therefore submits that the statement of Shri Prataprai Sanghvi cannot form the sole basis for making the impugned addition. To support his case, he relies on the decisions in Sunder Agencies v. Dy. CIT [1997] 63 ITD 245 , 258-9 (Mum.); Asstt. CIT v. Mrs. Sushila Devi S. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed sheets did not carry any page number; two, the said narration was neither pointed out nor referred to by Shri Prataprai Sanghvi or Shri Jhaverchand Momaya or any one else at the time of search; three, Shri Navinchandra Mehta who subsequently filed the affidavit claiming the seized sheets to be in his handwriting was also present at the time of search but he too did not point out or refer to the said narration on seized sheets; four, Shri Navinchandra Mehta was thoroughly examined on 8-10-1996 but he did not say, even at that time, that there was any such narration on the back side of page 16 of the seized sheets; five, none of the other persons examined, i.e., S/Shri Jhaverchand Momaya on 22-11-1995 and 4-9-1996, Prataprai Sanghvi on 22-11-1995 and 26-7-1996, Ishwardas Sanghvi on 26-7-1996 and 3-9-1996 and Shantilal Momaya on 3-8-1996 under section 132(4) or 131 stated or referred to the said narration in their depositions which goes on to prove the doubtful nature of the said narration; six, while all the main pages 13 to 16 of the seized sheets were written in English using Arabic numerals, the narration was in Gujarati using Gujarati numerals; and, seven, the said narration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d confession was not permissible in terms of the decision in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India [1997] 135 Taxation 711 (SC). According to him, the assessee was bound by the statement of Shri Prataprai Sanghvi in view of the decisions in MK Mohammad Kunhi v. CIT [1973] 92 ITR 341 (Ker.); Rameshchandra Co. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 3751 (Bom.); Video Master v. Joint. CIT [2002] 83 ITD 102 (Mum.); Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT [2001] 248 ITR 7822 (All.); Ramesh T Salve v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 75 ITD 75 (Mum.); Hotel Kiran v. Asstt. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune); Param Anand Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 59 ITD 29 (Mum.). (v)Referring to the submission of the learned senior counsel that there was no independent evidence to corroborate the statement of Shri Prataprai Sanghvi about the unaccounted nature of the stock shown in the seized sheets as also about the declaration of additional income of ₹ 2 crores, the learned CIT-DR submitted that the statement of Shri Prataprai Sanghvi was adequately corroborated by the entries made in the seized sheets as also by the statement of Shri Jhaverchand Momaya. According to him, Shri Sanghvi confessed and offered the additional income of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that he himself has stated in the said statement that he was giving the statement voluntarily without any undue influence, threat or coercion. He has further certified in the said statement to have read over the statement and found the same to have been correctly recorded. Secondly, the said statement of Shri Prataprai Sanghvi was not recorded in the early morning of 22-11-1995, as alleged by the assessee but at 9.00 a.m. on 22-11-1995 and that too in the presence of the witnesses and Shri Jhaverchand Momaya who was present at the time of search. Thirdly, Shri Prataprai Sanghvi had made the declaration after necessary consultation with Shri Jhaverchand Momaya, Chief Accountant and Shri Shantilal Momaya, Accountant of the firm s Vashi Office. It is quite unlikely that senior officers of the Department who were entrusted with the search operation would have applied force to extract the said declaration and both the aforesaid persons would also have made the said declaration without any protest and would also not have immediately retracted from the said declaration alleged to be forcibly obtained soon after the alleged undue influence, force or coercion ceased to exist afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements recorded under section 132(4) on 22-11-1995 were retracted by filing the affidavit of Shri Navinchandra Mehta followed by the statement of Shri Prataprai Sanghvi and the written submissions filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. As against this, the Department s contention is two-fold: one, that the facts admitted or declared have not been effectively retracted; and two, that the alleged retraction is only an afterthought and hence should be ignored. The chronological order in which the statements of Shri Jhaverchand Momaya and Shri Prataprai Sanghvi have been recorded under section 132(4) i.e., at 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. respectively on 22-11-1995 at the same place, i.e., the office of the firm is important. 18. Following facts emerge from the statements of both the aforesaid persons recorded at the time of search under section 132(4) and the documentary evidence found during the course of search on 22-11-1995: (i)The documentary evidence, i.e., seized sheets clearly record complete details of stock giving the description of each commodity, unit of measurement, weight/quantity of stock, rate, total value of each item of stock and total value of all the items of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said stock reflected in those books. In reply to Q. No. 5, he admitted to have consulted his Chief Accountant (Shri Jhaverchand Momaya) and his Accountant of Vashi Office (Shri Shantilal Momaya) and thereafter further admitted that stock statements referred to as pages 13 to 17 of Annexure A/1 were unaccounted and also other than the stock found at Savla Cold Storage, APMC shop and Masjid Bunder. The above facts were admitted by a seasoned businessman with considerable business experience and after necessary consultations with those who had the requisite knowledge and experience in the affairs of the assessee-firm. In the said statement, there is not even a whisper that the seized sheets showed mere estimates of purchases to be made. (iv)Shri Prataprai Sanghvi admitted and declared that the stock recorded in the seized sheets were unaccounted and, in that view of the matter, declared unaccounted income of ₹ 2 crores to buy peace with the Department. Thus, the nature of the contents of the seized sheets as admitted/declared is duly corroborated by oral evidence of two persons, namely, Shri Jhaverchand Momaya, Chief Accountant and Shri Prataprai Sanghvi, partner. Likewise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee that other partners were not aware of the said admission and declaration made by Shri Prataprai Sanghvi and Shri Jhaverchand Momaya. Despite that, none of them came forward within reasonable time-frame to have the statements of Shri Prataprai Sanghvi or Jhaverchand Momaya corrected or even to allege that they were incorrect or incorrectly recorded. 19. It is not in dispute that Shri Prataprai Sanghvi, partner in the assessee-firm was competent to make the statement in question under section 132(4) on behalf of the assessee-firm. Besides, in Nathmal Peshormal v. CIT [SLP (Civil) No. 12684 of 1989 : [1990] 182 ITR (St.) 146-47 (SC)], the Hon ble Supreme Court has dismissed the assessee s SLP against the order dated 11-1-1989 of the Allahabad High Court in ITR No. 232 of 1988 whereby the High Court rejected the assessee s reference application on the question whether the addition of the value of some gold to the income of the assessee-firm was justified when, pursuant to a search and seizure, a quantity of gold was seized from the residence of the partners of the assessee-firm, which carried on the business in the manufacture and sale of gold and silver jewellery, and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh it is wrong. Justice here prevails over truth Estoppel is often described as a rule of evidence, but more correctly it is a principle of law. As a principle of common law it applies only to representations about past or present facts. 22. Provisions of section 115 of the Evidence Act are also quite apposite and the case of the assessee squarely falls thereunder. Section 115 of the Evidence Act provides as under : 115. When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing. 23. We are aware of the principle laid down in several cases that the Evidence Act does not apply to the proceedings under the Income-tax Act and further that the artificial or technical rules of evidence are not applicable to income-tax proceedings. This aspect of the matter has received careful consideration by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 1, 255. The Hon ble Court has held that what is mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atements were not made or if it had not accepted the said declaration made on oath. This approach of the assessee, in essence, would tantamount to his telling the Department that you accepted my lie and now your hands are tied and you can do nothing. Having made a voluntary declaration on oath and induced the Departmental Authorities to act upon the same at the time of search, the assessee cannot be permitted to turn around later and deny the truth of the aforesaid declarations or the representations made therein. Section 115 of the Evidence Act prevents him from doing so. 25. In our view, the retraction sought to be made by the assessee several months after making the declaration under section 132(4) was nothing but a well planned device to frustrate the efforts of the Department to unearth unaccounted income. The attempt of the assessee to retract from the said declaration is not only against the well-settled principles of common law and against the letter and spirit of section 115 of the Evidence Act but also against the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. The declaration made by Shri Prataprai Sanghvi under section 132(4) clearly fell under section 115 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rations made at the time of search in the case of the assessee before us also did not require any corroboration. The submission of the assessee is therefore being considered assuming, for the sake of argument, that the statements made at the time of search were not covered by section 115 of the Evidence Act. First we shall deal with the legal aspects of the issue. The Hon ble Bombay High Court has held in several criminal cases, viz., Queen-Empress v. Gharya [1894] 19 Bom. 728; Queen-Empress v. Gangia [1898] 23 Bom. 316; Queen-Empress v. Baswanta [1900] 2 Bom. LR 761; Emperor v. Bhagwandas Bisesar [1940] 42 Bom. LR 938; Emperor v. Bhimappa Saibanna [1945] 47 Bom. LR 648 that a retracted confession, if proved to be voluntarily made, can be acted upon along with the other evidence in the case, and there is no rule of law that a retracted confession must be supported by independent reliable evidence corroborating it in material particulars and that the use to be made of such a confession is more a matter of prudence than of law. In Shrishail Nageshi Pare v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1985 SC 866, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that, the retracted confession by an accused may form th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor form the basis for effective retraction of declaration made under section 132(4). For this reason also, we hold that the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the retraction filed by the assessee on the ground that it was an afterthought. 29. The view that we have taken above is supported by several judicial authorities some of which are as follows. In Surjeet Singh Chhabra s case (supra), it has been held that the Customs Officials are not police officers and the confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds the confessor. The Hon ble Court has held : ...Since the dispute concerns the confiscation of the jewellery, whether at conveyor belt or at the green channel, perhaps the witnesses were required to be called. But in view of confession made by him, it binds him and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case the failure to give him the opportunity to cross-examine the witness is not violative of principle of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner had retracted within six days from the confession. Therefore, he is entitled to cross-examine the panch witnesses before the authority takes a decision on proof of the offence. We f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint of law if the Tribunal passed an order of remand and that order has become final since no reference was obtained to question its correctness, then the decision is binding between the parties in the said assessment and neither of them will be allowed to question it or reopen it in another appeal before the Tribunal. [Emphasis supplied] 32. In V. Kunhambu v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 2351 (Ker.), the Hon ble High Court has held : In Rameshchandra Co. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 375, the Bombay High Court observed that where an assessee has made a statement of facts, he can have no grievance if the taxing authority taxes him in accordance with that statement. If he can have no grievance, he can file no appeal. Therefore, it is imperative, if the assessee s case is that his statement has been wrongly recorded or that he made it under a mistaken belief of fact or law, that he should make an application for rectification to the authority which passed the order based upon that statement. Until rectification is made, an appeal is not competent. We are in agreement with this observation. In this case, the assessment has been made based on the statement of the assessee. Since no case has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the Income-tax Authorities for making investigation including the powers of search. If in the course of such search, the assessee makes some admission, he debars the authorised officer from making further investigation. In view of this, Legislature in its wisdom has provided that such statement can be used in evidence and the assessment can be made on the basis of such statement. The sanctity of such provision would be lost if the assessee is allowed to contend that no addition can be made on the basis of such admission. However, such admission can be retracted by the assessee only if the circumstances as mentioned in the earlier paragraphs are established by the assessee to exist. [Emphasis supplied] 34. In Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT [2001] 248 ITR 7821 (All.), the Hon ble High Court has held as under : As regards the assessee s contention that the statement having been retracted the Assessing Officer should have independently come to a conclusion that there was additional income as sought to be assessed and that there was no material to support that there was such income, this contention in our view is not correct. As held by the Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (4) of section 132 also create rebuttable presumption in favour of the statements recorded thereunder and authorize their use in evidence in any proceeding under the Income-tax Act. The burden is therefore squarely on the person who alleges that the statement was not made voluntarily to prove that it was involuntarily made or made under coercion or undue influence or that it was made under mistaken belief or was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. Mere allegation will not suffice. Second situation is where the person seeking to retract proves, by leading cogent and reliable evidence, the erroneous or incorrect nature of the facts stated or confessed at the earliest possible opportunity. In the case before us, it has been held above that the assessee has squarely failed to satisfactorily discharge the burden that the confessional statement made by Shri Prataprai Sanghvi under section 132(4) was involuntarily made or made under coercion or undue influence or was made under mistaken belief or obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. Rather, the evidence available on record shows that it was voluntarily made by Shri Sanghvi with due care and caution and after necessary consulta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essary to consider whether the evidence adduced must inspires confidence, is capable of being believed and treated as proved. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists; Definition of proved as given in section3 of the Evidence Act. Similarly, a fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist: Definition of Disproved under section 3 of the Evidence Act. A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved : Definition of not proved in section 3 of the Evidence Act. Section 114 of the Evidence Act requires that regard should be had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Section 132(4A) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, the reason for saying that the said seized sheets contained mere estimates of stock to be purchased to replenish the stock which had been reportedly sold on the occasion of Diwali can also not be accepted as the seized sheets were dated 20-11-1995 and recovered at the time of search conducted on 21/22-11-1995 whereas Diwali was on 23-10-1995 and hence whatever stock was required to be replenished after Diwali must have been replenished immediately after Diwali and not that any prudent businessman would think of replenishing the stocks sold at the time of Diwali after a month of their having been sold out. Besides, there were no festivals around the search time which could have required or prompted the assessee to procure goods worth ₹ 2 crores to meet any seasonal demand. Dry fruits are perishable commodities and hence it is quite natural that they would be procured for meeting the short term requirements. Ninthly, the alternative submission of the assessee that even if the seized sheets are taken to show the actual stock held by the assessee, the difference between the value of stock shown in the said sheets and the value of stock recorded in the books alone should be co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted the facts admitted by the assessee. They did not see any point in pursing a fact which the assessee had voluntarily admitted. It is well accepted that admitted facts are not required to be further proved. The other submission made on behalf of the assessee that no prohibitory order was issued under section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act in respect of the stock reflected in the seized sheets is also misplaced. Issuance of the order under section 132(3) does not convert an explained asset into unexplained asset or vice versa. When Shri Prataprai Sanghvi had voluntarily confessed that the stock shown in the seized sheets was unaccounted and also offered the same to tax, there was no occasion for the Departmental authorities to pursue the matter further and thereby cause inconvenience to the assessee and put dry fruits, a fast perishable commodity, to prohibition contemplated by section 132(3). 40. It was next submitted by the learned counsel that there was no excess stock even as per the seized sheets as it was not unlikely that the items mentioned in the seized sheets reflected true market value of stock lying with the firm. It was submitted that the book value of the stock in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he seized sheets contained mere estimates of stock. 42. The learned counsel further submitted that full and complete enquiries were not made by the Departmental authorities to locate the unaccounted stock in relation to which the impugned addition has been made by them. He submitted that the assessment should therefore be set aside and the matter restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for making further enquiries and then to make any addition if warranted on the basis of such enquiries. On careful consideration of the aforesaid submission, we are not inclined to accept the same. The judicial limits of power to remand the assessment are well settled. In the case before us, both the parties had ample opportunities to prepare their cases. We have no difficulty to decide the matter. We are therefore, unable to remand the matter in the hope that parties would be able to bring more materials on record which may help them later. 43. If all the relevant facts of the case are put in the chronological order and examined sequentially it becomes quite clear that the case of Shri Prataprai Sanghvi supported by Shri Jhaverchand Momaya at the time of search was that the seized sheets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
