9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l by which the addition of a sum of Rs. 4,82,750 on the ground of undisclosed income was upheld. The assessee has questioned the order of the learned Tribunal on the basis of the following question of law : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer that the amount of Rs. 4,82,750 was 'undisclosed' investment of the petitioner company by totally giving no credence to the fact produced by the petitioner company which were substantial in nature and thereafter the order passed by the learned Tribunal ignoring the relevant facts and in taking into consideration irrelevant materials is perverse ?" 3. When can an order be said to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducting the enquiry has acted in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or has violated the principles of natural justice, where no particular procedure is prescribed. 81. In any of the above cases and in any other case where the court, in the particular facts of the case, considers the finding of the Tribunal to be perverse and where the court is of the opinion that justice of the case so requires, the court is entitled to interfere and set aside the finding of the Tribunal on any question of fact. In such cases, the court holds that there is an error of law on any of the above grounds." 4. In the light of the views quoted above, one has to find out whether the views taken by the learned Tribunal are perverse. 5. Mr. Sen, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,600 3,30,000 30-7-1996 1,37,750 45,000 92,750 3. On being asked to explain the difference, the assessee stated that the difference of Rs. 60,000 in investment as on May 17, 1996 was the amount paid in cash out of M/s. Barelia Coke Industries and ultimately the transaction did not materialise. So no entry was recorded in the books. As regards the difference of Rs. 3,30,000 and Rs. 92,750 found in investment made on July 20, 1996 and July 30, 1996 respectively, the assessee claimed that it agreed to buy high land at the above price, but on inspection of the land, it was found that the land was low and huge expenditure would have to be incurred on filling of the land. The agreed consideration to be paid was reduced on renegotiation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A/1 in respect of the transactions dated July 29, 1996 is Rs. 5,16,000. The addition of Rs. 3,30,000 is based on the material found in the search from which it is evident that this amount was paid over and above the amount shown in the deed. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that since the addition has been made on the basis of evidence found during the search, the addition was justified and he sustained the same. For the same reason, the addition made of Rs. 92,750 was also upheld. 5. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of both the lower authorities we find that during the course of search a paper was seized marked as A/1 and also cash book and ledger were seized which were marked A-3/31 and 32 respecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in the seized ledger marked A-3/31, the amount recorded in the books of account is Rs. 1,86,600 as against the amount shown in the seized paper at Rs. 5,16,600. Thus the fact of investment for purchase of land on the seized paper has been corroborated with the seized books of account. Further, it is also admitted fact that the paper was seized from the possession of the assessee and primarily it has to be presumed that it belongs to the assessee. As the fact of purchase of land as entered in the seized paper has been corroborated with that of the seized books of account, the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer that the sum of Rs. 3,30,000 was paid over and above the amount of Rs. 1,86,600 which is out of the undisclosed source of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized marked A- 1/1, it appeared that the sum of Rs. 60,000 was invested for the purpose of buying the land for the assessee and this sum was not debited to the books of account of the assessee. 7. Mr. Sen contends that this sum of Rs. 60,000 was not paid by the assessee. That amount was paid, according to him, by the sister concern of the assessee, namely, M/s. Barelia Coke Industries. Even assuming that the money was paid by the Barelia Coke Industries, the assessee should have in that case credited the account of Barelia and debited the account of the seller of the land. 8. Mr. Sen replied by stating that this was not done because the deal did not ultimately fructify. If the deal did not fructify then the question remains whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
