TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals). There was no evidence on record to establish that there was any other undisclosed income in support of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based upon the findings of fact recorded by it upon appreciation of the evidence on record, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out therein, the impugned order does not give rise to any question of law - Decided in favour of assessee - TAX APPEAL NO. 274 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2016 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. The appellant revenue in this ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tting income of ₹ 98,07,272/- along with profits and gains from business of ₹ 98,92,240/-. 3. The Assessing Officer took up the matter in scrutiny and sought for reasons for understating income of ₹ 2,13,07,700/- which was stated to be an unaccounted income. During the course of survey, the assessee replied that out of the disclosure made during the survey he had admitted a sum of ₹ 1,04,11,752/- which was reduced to ₹ 98,92,240/- after claiming depreciation. He also emphasized that there was no business activity carried out in the last three years and that the income in question had been disclosed as per the relevant cash book and gross receipts. The Assessing Officer framed a regular assessment on 27.6.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he material on record, found that the true undisclosed income of the assessee which was earned during the year under consideration upto the date of survey, that is, 2.2.2007 was only to the extent of ₹ 1,43,68,982/- and not ₹ 3,12,00,000/- as declared by the assessee as recorded during the survey. He further observed that the statement was recorded on the basis of documents found during the survey and the documents clearly showed the true extent of undisclosed income as ₹ 1,43,68,982/- which had been duly disclosed by the assessee both in his individual capacity (Rs.1,04,11,752/-) and in the hands of his HUF (Rs.42,15,000/-). The Commissioner (Appeals) was, accordingly, of the view that no addition can be made of the diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the fact that the addition was not based upon any material found during the course of survey. The Commissioner (Appeals), upon appreciation of the material on record, found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not backed by any supporting material indicating any undisclosed income to the extent of the addition. The Tribunal, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Thus, the Tribunal has based its findings upon the concurrent findings of fact recorded by it upon appreciating the evidence on record which indicate that, except for the statement recorded during the course of survey, there was no evidence on record to establish that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
