TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed transactions are considered in the assessment year 1989-90 when there is no date mentioned on the document. Once search took place in April, 1995, then undated paper could be presumed to be belonging to that period and hence the year of taxability would be assessment year 1996-97. Thus, it is merely by surmises that the AO has taxed it in the year 1989-90. Thus, a document found during the course of search must be a speaking one and without any second interpretation, must reflect all the details about the transaction of the assessee in the relevant assessment year. Any gap in various components as mentioned in Section 4 of the I.T. Act must be filled up by the AO through investigations and correlations with other material found either during the No. 7 course of the search or on investigation. As a result, we hold that document No. 7 is a non-speaking document. Since the facts of the present case are similar to the case of Sri Kantilal Bros., we are of the view that no addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made on the basis of loose sheet being document No. 7 found during the course of the search. Presumption lying u/s 132(4A) - In our considered view, such presumption i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, following our own reasoning in Revenue's appeal, the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A), in our view, is incorrect and the same is, therefore, deleted. Unexplained investment - search and seizure operations - found loose paper - HELD THAT:- The nature of transaction is clear that they are purchases. The date is available i.e. 27.6.1992 and finally the quantum of expenditure is also clear i.e. Rs. 1,31,736. Thus, there is no room for any doubt and therefore, we are of the considered view that lower authorities were justified in treating this amount as expenditure/investment and as no explanation was forthcoming, it was rightly treated as unexplained investment. It was for the assessee to submit cogent material so as to show that inference drawn by the AO was incorrect. It was for him to bring evidence from the concerned party that it is not a purchase but only a quotation. Since no such material was produced by the assessee, the onus shifted back to the assessee, remained undischarged. As a result, we confirm this addition. This ground of the assessee, therefore, fails. Notice issued u/s 143(2) - assessment completed u/s 143(3) - We are of the view that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o explain the transactions. It was taken by the AO that the documents in question reflected advancing of loans and therefore, he asked the assessee to explain these advances. The assessee denied to have advanced any amount to any person. Originally he disowned the paper seized from his residence. He also denied to have any concern with the document or the figures mentioned in that document. An affidavit to this effect was also filed. In that affidavit, Sri Satyapal Wassan averred that he did not know the persons whose names are appearing in that document. The AO, however, took the view that once a document was seized from the residence of the assessee, then it would be in its knowledge and the explanation or affidavit furnished by him is only with the intention of escapement of tax liability. Since the assessee failed to establish with the supporting evidence that seized paper did not pertain to him or that entries appearing therein are not connected with him or his business, the AO treated the entries in the document as undisclosed investment in money lending business and thus added a sum of Rs.20,30,000 as the assessee's undisclosed income. The assessee had challenged the re- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the above persons who wanted to have business dealings with late Shri Dharamveer Wassan. I am convinced with the argument of the appellant that these fresh evidences may be admitted in the interest of justice. In this regard, I rely on the judgment of the S.C. in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT wherein it has been held that the powers of CIT (Appeals) are co-terminous with those of the AO and the entire assessment is open before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the first appellate authority can admit fresh evidence. The Cal. H.C. in Tara devi Goenka v. CIT had held that an appeal is continuation of assessment and first appellate authority is empowered to admit additional evidence at the time of hearing;. Relying on the above decisions, I deem it proper to admit fresh evidence for adjudication. It appears that Smt. Nirmal Kanta Wassan widow of late Dharamveer Wassan has stated that the Paper No. 7 is in the handwriting of her husband late Dharamveer Wassan. She has submitted it by way of affidavit. She has also stated that her husband wanted to start iron and steel business at Korba. Therefore he negotiated with various persons in connection with iron and steel tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded on the seized document are not the advances of money but they are, at best, quantity of orders for purchase or sale placed by different parties to Sri Dharmvir Wassan. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the document in question is incomplete inasmuch as it does not provide full names and addresses of persons, the date of alleged transactions or the monetary unit in which alleged figures are written. They did not show whether alleged figures are in Rupees, tons, Kilograms, Centimeters, Yards and Inches. They do not show whether it is a debit transaction or a credit transaction. The total of 22.30 does not show whether it is Rupees or something else. The document does not carry signature of any person. In absence of any detail, no transaction can be inferred from that document. No opportunity was given to the assessee to explain the nature of transaction and therefore, no addition could be made thereupon, The alleged document is only a dumb document and once document is incomplete, then no addition is called for. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the entries may go even prior to 1993 or to any other year. There is no corroborative evidence collected by the AO so as to support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the assessment year 1989-90 whereas search was done in April, 1995. There is no date on the document which could indicate that the transaction took place in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1989-90. At best one could consider the assessment year as 1995-96 as the document was recovered in April, 1995. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In order to resolve the controversy as to whether any taxable income would arise from the alleged document, we may consider it relevant to record its English version: G.S. 5 Ravi 2 Kotli 2 Umiya 2 Swamy 5 Ganpath 1 1/2 Radhey Shyam 1/2 Shyamjibhai 1 Dari .30 Lamba 1/2 Bhu 1/2 Dev. Bros. 2 22.30 8. In addition tot this, there are two more entries on this document as under: VKP 2.5 KK .34 9. Thus there are certain names written either in full or in abbreviation against which certain figures are mentioned whose total is written 22.30. In addition to this, there are two more figures in the name of VKP 2.5 and KK .34. The documents does not carry any signature. It does not show any date. It does not show any unit like Rupee, tons, Kilograms, Centimeters, Yards or In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he was duty bound to look into it and find out who is the real owner of the transactions and income arising therefrom by carrying out necessary investigation. The fact that he chose to refrain himself from carrying out such enquiries clearly indicates that there was no merit in the presumptions raised by the AO that the document belonged to the assessee and transactions also belonged to him. The additions were apparently made for the sake of additions. 11. For the sake of argument if we accept the submission of the Ld. D.R. that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in accepting fresh evidence then what is left after ignoring those affidavits is the bare document No. 7 with the bare details as referred to above. The moot question now arises is whether any addition can be made on the basis of that document. We have already pointed out above that this document is bereft of necessary details about year of transaction, ownership of transaction, nature of transaction, necessary code for deciphering the figures. It may be possible that a document may not be complete in all respects as the businessman or tax evaders may chose to record minimum details on a document and keep the rest in their memory. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermining total income on the basis of seized document. Our view in this regard is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. CST (1985) 155 ITR 144(SC) wherein it was held that for the purpose of charging to tax, there should be four components to be satisfied. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the relevant head notes from that decision: The component which enter into the concept of a tax are well known. The first is the character of the imposition known by its nature which prescribes the taxable event attracting the levy, the second is a clear indication of the person on whom the levy is imposed and who is obliged to pay the tax, the third is the rate at which the tax is imposed and he fourth is the measure or value to which the rate will be applied for computing the tax liability. If those components are not clearly and definitely ascertainable, it is difficult to say that the levy exists in point of law. Any uncertainty or vagueness in the legislation scheme defining any of those components of the levy will be fatal to its validity. 14. Now let us examine these components in detail and how they are relevant for taxing an it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he body of a person, does not automatically lead to the inference that it belonged to him. It is only for certain purposes that presumption under Section 132 (4A) has been enacted and not for all purposes including the assessment. Further this presumption is not conclusive. It is rebuttable. If the assessee has by way of affidavit denied ownership of the document and further Smt. Nirmal Kanta, wife of Sri Dharamvir Wassan admitted that it belonged to her husband, it could not be inferred without rebutting those evidences (filed in the form of affidavits before the AO) that document and transactions recorded therein, in fact, belonged to Sri Satyapal Wassan. Onus under Section 132(4A) is always shifting. This sub-section provides that. Section 132 (4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed. (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e their evidentiary value if there is no material contrary to the averments made in the affidavit. When sufficient other material is found in the search which corroborates that document belonged to the assessee, then denial of such ownership merely by affidavits will be meaningless and they do not carry any weight to rebut the presumption lying on the assessee. In the present case, nothing is shown by the AO that there was other material correlated with the impugned document clearly showing that it belonged to the assessee. Under these circumstances, the assessee has successfully shifted the onus on to the AO by filing the affidavits. They may be self-serving but carry enough weight to shift the burden or rebut the presumption. Once the onus is shifted to the AO, he was duty bound to collect evidence so as to belie the contents of the affidavit and hold that document and transactions recorded therein, in fact, belonged to Satyapal Wassan. If the AO has not done so, it could not be said that the second component of levy of charge has been properly established by him. 17. The third component in levy of charge is assessment year. The document and/or follow up investigation must est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any action to recover the money from the alleged debtors. It is not believable that the assessee or his legal heir would forget their money lying with the debtors. By one way or other, he or his legal heir would try to recover the money. The department has not done anything to find out that after the search in April, 1995. We are also unable to satisfy ourselves as to why the alleged transactions are considered in the assessment year 1989-90 when there is no date mentioned on the document. Once search took place in April, 1995, then undated paper could be presumed to be belonging to that period and hence the year of taxability would be assessment year 1996-97. Thus, it is merely by surmises that the AO has taxed it in the year 1989-90. 21. Our view is supported by the decision of I.T.A.T. in several other cases. In Bansal Strips (p.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2006) 99 ITD 177 (Del.), the AO has found certain loose papers during the course of search which indicated that certain figures against certain names were written. They were decoded to make the total to Rs. 53,69,260. The assessee submitted before the Tribunal that (i) the impugned seized papers are dumb documents and no addition can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioning of low withdrawals or purchase of plots or the mentioning of stock or the figures of stock could not be added as the assessee's income as they could not be related to the assessee. It shows that it is very important for the AO to find out that the entries and related transactions belonged to the assessee. In our case, where affidavit is filed that entries related to Dharamveer Wassan and not to the assessee, it was incumbent on the AO to carry out necessary enquiries and relate the transactions with Sri Satyapal Wassan. Since such exercise has not been done, the document could not be considered in the assessment year in question or even otherwise in the case of the assessee 25. In the case of Smt. Neena Syal v. ACIT (1999), 70 ITD 62 (Chandigarh), the decision of Tribunal in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. ITO 1991 39 ITD 183 (Del.) was referred in which it was held that where documents found at the time of the search did not indicate whether figures referred to in the paper reflect quantities of money or to quantities of goods, the same are only dumb documents and therefore, no addition could be made on the basis of such documents. It was held in Neena Syal's ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifies a collection of sheets of paper bound together in a manner which cannot be disturbed or altered except by tearing them apart. This binding is of a kind which is not Intended to be movable in the sense of being undone and put together again. As per Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act, book means a collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent. Unbound papers collectively kept in one volume, in whatever quantity, though filled up with one continuous account, are not a book of account within the meaning of Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act. In C.B.I. v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410, paragraph 18, it was held that the spiral notebooks and spiral pads are books within the meaning of Section 34 of the Evidence Act. In the same case, it was also held that loose sheets of papers contained in files are not the books. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sheraton Apparels v. ACIT 256 ITR 20 (Bom.). The concept of word books in the context of Section 271(1)(c) Explanation 5 was considered but it is equally relevant for the purposes of Section 68 where the word books is u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere to explain the meaning of the term 'book'. The word 'book' is not defined under the Income-tax Act. We, therefore, take the meaning of the word 'book' as is understood in the common parlance. As per Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (1983) edition), 'book' is defined as under: Book means A collection of sheets of paper etc. bound together or made into a roll either printed, written on, or blank. As per Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Eight Edition), Book is a general name given to every literary composition which is printed, but appropriately to a printed composition bound in a volume. In view of above, the 'piece of paper' impounded at the time of search cannot construed to be a book. The definition of the book as given in the Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative, deals with its meaning in the context of the Copyright Act, 1842. There the book is defined as every volume, part or division; of a volume, pamphlet, sheet of letter press, sheet of music, map, chart or plan separately published. This definition is not relevant for our purpose. For the purpose of explaining the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hidden or undisclosed income or property and bring it to assessment It is not merely for obtaining information of undisclosed income but also to seize money, bullion e etc representing the undisclosed income and to retain them for the purposes of realization of taxes, penalties etc. Search and seizure is a serious invasion into the privacy of the person. The words in Sub-section (4A) are may be presumed . The presumption under Sub-section (4A), therefore, is a rebuttable presumption. The presumption under Sub-section (4A) would not be available for the purpose of framing a regular assessment There is nothing either in Section 132 or any other provision of the Act to indicate that the presumption provided under Section 132, which is a self-contained code for search and seizure and retention of etc., can be raised for the purposes of framing of the regular assessment as well. Wherever the Legislature intended a presumption to continue, it has provided so. It has not been provided that the presumption available Section 132(4A) would be available for framing the regular assessment under Section 143 as well. Whereas the Legislature under Section 132(4A) has provided that the books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,67,020. As mentioned in Revenue's appeal, there was a search and seizure operation at the business premises of the assessee. Several documents were found. One was document No. 7 in Annexure A1/14 on the basis of which an addition of Rs. 22,3 0,000 was made. This was deleted by the Ld. CIT (A) against which the Revenue: is in appeal, which has been decided as above in I.T.A. No. 290 (Jab.)/1999. In the present appeal filed by the assessee, the challenge is to the reopening of the assessment under Section 148. The issue was discussed by the Ld. CIT (A). It was submitted before him that no reasons were recorded and that notice under Section 148 did not disclose the reasons for re-opening of the assessment. The assessee had specifically requested for indicating the reasons but they were not allegedly provided to him. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the re-opening by observing as under: 2. I have gone through the order of the AO and the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant. I find that a loose paper No. 7 which formed part of A-l/l(4) was seized from the residential premises of the appellant. It recorded transactions amounting to Rs. 22,30,000. The appellant has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 330937 and of Rs. 22,3 0,000 were recorded. It was enough of the reasons for the AO to form a belief that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. It is not necessary for the AO to come to the final conclusion that income has actually escaped assessment. The belief is only, prima facie, and therefore no inference can be drawn as to the final outcome of the assessment proceedings. 37. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material n record. The reasons recorded by the AO are as under: 1. Search and seizure operations were carried out at the assessee's business and residential premises in April, 1995. During the search operations books and documents were seized. As per Annexure No. A-1 /1(1) one AC Steel Diary was seized from his residence. The entries in this diary show that the assessee had cash transactions amounting to Rs.3,30m,937. The firm in which the assessee is a partner deals in purchase and sale of scrap and steel items. These transactions are not appearing in the firm's books. The entire transactions amounting to Rs. 3,30,937 appear to be out of assessee's undisclosed income and liable to tax. The assessee has not maintained any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case, we find that there is a direct nexus of the material available with the AO with the formation of the belief. Once it is done, in our considered view the reopening is justified. As a result, we reject the contention of the ld. A.R. in this regard. We uphold the order of ld. CIT (A) wherein he has confirmed the re-opening of the assessment. This ground of the assessee is, therefore, rejected. 39. The next ground is about addition of Rs. 20,000 as per seized loose paper No. 9 of Annexure A1/14. The seized paper No. 9 of Annexure A1/14 reads as under: Doobat Khata 50,000 19.7.89 40,000 14.7.87 25,000 20,000 21.1.83 30,000 Krishna Metal Ambika Enterprises 20,000 10.10.88 20,000 15,000 8.4.1986 20,000 Geeta Timber 10,000 4.8.82 50,000 Sandeep Traders 20,000 10.7.85 20,000 Natwar Saw Mill 20,000 19.7.83 160,000 30,000 10.3.85 40,000 25.7.84 20,000 23.10.83 20,000 24.10.83 50,000 20.7.83 3,40,000 30,000 19.7.83 1.00,000 20,000 28.7.82 2,40,000 20,000 27.7.82 30,000 27.1.84 25,000 16.11.83 50.000 20.3.83 5.30.000 Iron store 22.000 5.52.000 1.60.000 3,92,000 22.000 Rathi Iron 3,70,000 25.000 Bhavnji Vishram 3,40,000 40. The Ld. A.O. made the addition of Rs.20,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is a heading which shows Doobat Khata at the top of the paper. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the authorities below. 43. The ld. A.R. raised the same arguments as he has raised in respect of document No. 7 in revenue's appeal. We find that the AO had not recorded any statement of any person or carried out any investigation so as to show that the sum of Rs. 5,30,000 as mentioned on this Paper, which included the sum of Rs. 20,000 in the name of Ambika Enterprises are advances. It does not show that the document belonged to the assessee. No correlation of this document with the assessee has been established. It also does not show that the assessee has, in fact, advanced Rs. 20,000 or for that matter Rs. 5,30,000 on various dates. Thus, on the basis of same reasoning as we have given in respect of document No. 7 in revenue's appeal, we hold that the document No. 9 also is non-speaking so far as entry of Rs. 20,000 or for that matter entry of Rs. 5,30,000 being the total of various entries are concerned. It is not established by the AO that they are monies advanced. It is also not established that they are not recorded in the regular books of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition made in the assessment year 1989-90 on the basis of document No. 9 was deleted. 47. After hearing the parties, following our decision for the assessment year 1989-90, we hold that the addition of Rs. 90,000 on the basis of loose document No. 9, which is a dumb document, could not be made for the same reasons. As a result this addition is deleted. 48. The next ground is about interest under Section 234A and 234B. Following our order in the assessment year 1989-90. we hold that the interest is mandatory in nature and that is consequential on the basis of assessed income. 49. The assessee has sought to raise additional grounds as under: (A) Considering the fact that the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was contrary to the provisions of law, the impugned notice Under Section 143(2) of the Act is bad in law rendering all subsequent action, including the assessment completed on 30/03/1999 Under Section 143(3) of the Act, bad in law and illegal. AND (B) Considering the feet that mere is no direction to charge interest in the assessment order passed on 30/03/1999, hence in view of Supreme Court decision in Ranchi Club Ltd.. Case (supra), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No. 9. We have held in appeal of the assessee in assessment year 1990-91 that no addition could be made on the basis of loose paper No. 9. Therefore, there is no scope of presuming interest income in respect of such advances. As a result, addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) is deleted. This ground of the assessee is therefore, allowed. As result, the appeal is allowed in part. I.T.A. No. 305 (Jab.)/1999-A.Y. 1991-92 (Revenue's appeal) 56. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,40,000 made on account of interest income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) Was not legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,754 made on account of interest income. Grounds relate to deletion of addition of interest income made by the AO on the basis of alleged presumption that the assessee has advanced money to various parties. This inference was drawn by the AO on the basis of seized paper No. 7 and 9 of Annexure A1/1-4. 57. We have heard the parties. While deciding the appeal for the assessment years 1989-90 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B and 234C of the Act. As held in the appeal for the assessment year 1990-91, the additional grounds become academic in view of the deletion of the addition and hence the additional grounds, after admitting, are dismissed. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. I.T.A. No. 30 (Jab.)/1999-A.Y. 1992-93 (Revenue's appeal) 61. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,40,000 made on account of interest income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) was not legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,296 made on account of interest income. 62. Grounds relate to deletion of addition of interest income made by the AO on the basis of alleged presumption that the assessee has advanced money to various parties. This inference was drawn by the AO on the basis of seized paper No. 7 and 9 of Annexure A1/1-4. 63. We halve heard the parties. While deciding the appeal for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, we have held that no addition could be made on the basis of loose sheets No. 7 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a big contractor and he would not have obtained quotation for one door closer or 500 screws. The AO observed that these were the purchases made for the use in the assessee's own house. In the loose paper under consideration not only the number of items and their rates are given but total value was also given. Under the circumstances, the AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and treated the sum of Rs. 1,31,736 as unexplained investment and added the same into the total income of the assessee. 67. Before the Ld. CIT (A), the same arguments were repeated that these are the quotations and not actual purchases. There was no evidence that the assessee has constructed any building of his own or whether he has purchased those hardware items. The ld. CIT (A) observed that the name, quantity and price rate of the building rate has been mentioned in the paper which is dated 27.6.1992. The total has been shown on each and every page. In fact,there has been wrong total which has been corrected. These items are double glass channel, brass tower bolts, brass rod latch, brass handle heavy, glass runner, glass hinges etc. The details noted in the paper do not show that the paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice Under Section 143(2) of the Act is bad in law rendering all subsequent action, including the assessment completed on 30/03/1999 Under Section 143(3) of the Act, bad in law and illegal. AND (B) Considering the feet that mere is no direction to charge interest in the assessment order passed on 30/03/1999, hence in view of Supreme Court decision in Ranchi Club Ltd. Case (supra), the learned Assessing Officer erred in charging interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act. 70. After hearing the parties and following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.T.P.C.'s case reported in 229 ITR 383 (S.C.), we admit the additional grounds. The main crux of the argument of the ld. A.R. is that the notice under Section 143(2) was beyond the period specified in the proviso below Sub-section (2) of Section 143. 71. After hearing the parties, we are of the view that there is no merit in the argument of the Ld. A.R. It is because there has been amendment in Section 148 wherein issuance of notice under Section 143(2) after expiry of 12 months is no longer required and in absence of issuance of such notice within 12 months, the assessment will not be declared invalid. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical for scheme of provisions relating to escapement of income. Therefore, the plea of the assessee in this regard is found to be not tenable, which is rejected. 72. After the amendment by Finance Act, 2006, the view was explicitly made clear that time limit for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) will not apply in re-assessment proceedings. Therefore, this additional ground taken by the assessee has no force and hence fails. As a result, this ground of the assessee is dismissed. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. I.T.A. No. 307 (Jab.)/1999- A.Y. 1993-94 (Revenue's appeal) 73. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lb. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,40,000 made on account of interest income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) was not legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,754 made on account of interest income. 74. As the facts of this year are the same as for assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. In those years, we have held that notional interest could not be charged to income as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... miss this ground of appeal. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. I.T.A. No. 201 (Jab.)/2002-A.Y. 1995-96 (Revenue's appeal) 79. In this case, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in (1) In deleting Rs. 6,85,680 out of addition of Rs. 7,07.280, (2) The order of the ld. CIT (A) is erroneous both in law as well as on facts. 80. We have heard the parties. The addition is on account of notional interest on alleged advances given by the assessee in the assessment year 1989-90. We have held in that year that the Revenue has failed to prove that the assessee has actually given any advance as claimed by the Revenue. We have confirmed the order of ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition in the assessment year 1989-90. Since giving of advance is not proved, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of notional interest. Accordingly, his order is confirmed. The appeal filed by the revenue is, therefore, dismissed. C.O. No. 6 (Jab.)/2006-A.Y. 1995-96 (Assessee's cross objection) 81. The assessee has raised the following cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
