TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... block assessment period 1 st April, 1989 to 10 th February, 2000. 2. During a search of the office premises of the Assessee, a bill for an amount of Rs.14,69,250/- in respect of commission on sale of flats by M/s. Televista Electronics Limited was found. It appears that the books of accounts of the Assessee indicated payment of an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- towards commission. 3. According to the Assessing Officer, post search inquiries revealed that the bill was bogus and in fact no commission was paid to M/s. Televista Electronics Limited. On this basis, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.12,50,000/- to the income of the Assessee as undisclosed income. 4. The view taken by the Assessing Officer was upheld b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presents wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purposes of this Act, or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false. 8. Learned counsel for the Revenue has relied on the last few words namely "or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false." She says that these words were added by an amendment with retrospective effect from 1 st July, 1995 by virtue of the Finance Act, 2002. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Assessee has placed reliance on another amendment brought by the same Finance Act with retrospective effect from 1 st July, 1995 as appearing in Section 158BB(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relatable to the document or transaction. This is clear from Section 158BB(1) of the Act which specifically requires that the material or information must be relatable to such evidence. Therefore, both requirements are necessary, namely, material showing that the amount has not been or would not have been disclosed and that the expense, deduction or allowance should be false on the basis of the unearthed evidence. 11. In so far as the present case is concerned, the very first requirement namely of non-disclosure of the material does not arise because in fact the Assessee had disclosed the transaction in its account books and this is not disputed by the Revenue. Moreover, the sale appears to have been considered by the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved in the sale of flats at Shalimar Residency. This is further supported by the fact that a single bill has been raised against commission received on account of sale of flats to different persons. All the flats could not possibly have been sold on the same date." 13. The Tribunal has opined that these were inadequate reasons for coming to the conclusion that the commission paid by the Assessee to M/s. Televista Electronics Limited was bogus. This is a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal based on the material on record. The facts considered by the Assessing Officer may raise a doubt with regard to the genuineness of the transaction, but that by itself is not enough. The facts must be relatable to the evidence available and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
