TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ite adjudication is given in the following paragraphs. 2. In view of the commonness of the grounds raised in all the appeals, firstly, we shall take up ITA No.4812/M/2010 (AY 2003-2004) and the only effective ground raised in this appeal reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made on account of estimated unaccounted turnover and unaccounted income without appreciating the facts of the case. 3. At the outset, Shri Manish Sanghavi, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that in all the three appeals, the Assessing Officer made estimations for arriving at an unaccounted turnover and unaccounted income based on the loose papers disco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erused the decision of ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Gurumukh M. Jagwani (supra), in which one of us is a party, and find that the same issue has been decided by the ITAT in favour of the assessee vide para 4 of the said order and the same reads as under: 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the para 4 of the order of the Tribunal vide ITA No.1375 to 1378/PN/07 dated 22.6.2009, for the proposition that the extrapolation of suppressed sales to an AY based on the seized data for part of the PY of a different AY, is not to be entertained legally. For the sake of completeness relevant para 4 and 5 of the order dated 22.6.2006 are reproduced as under: 4. Heard the submissions of both the sides. From the side of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any action was required, the same ought to be for the AY 2005-06 as it was held by several courts that no income could be estimated for the other years on the basis of evidence found for one particular year especially when there was no incriminating evidence pertained to any other assessment year. The case law cited was as follows:- 1. Royal Marwal Tobacco Products (P) Ltd (120 TTJ 387) (Ahd) 2. H.C. Chandna (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (91 TTJ 243 (Del)) 3. ACIT vs. Smt. Radha Rani (101 TTJ 1017 (JP)) 4. ACIT vs. Ambica Food Industries Ltd. (110 TTJ (Hyd)) 5. ACIT vs. M.M. Sales Agencies (97 TTJ 575 JP) 6. State of Orissaj vs. J.P. Sikiria 7 CO (67 stc 101 (Orissa)) 5. On the examination of the law laid down in the above preceden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
