TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the land - Held that:- We note that CIT-A has confirmed the undisclosed sales of ₹ 1,86,57,135/-, ₹ 7,67,35,863/- and ₹ 8,14,26,433/- in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10 which was worked out by the AO in his assessment orders passed under section 153A of the Act respectively. We also observed that the ld. CIT-A have also upheld the order of the AO in assessing the gross profit on such undisclosed sales as well as addition on account of undisclosed investment. Thus the ld. CIT-A was of the opinion that the cash payments as recorded in the impounded document SPB/19 has to be treated as made out of the receipts recorded in SPB/19 which have already been considered by the AO. In other words, according to the ld. CIT-A the cash payments as recorded in the impounded document SPB/19 has to be treated as explained in view of the receipts recorded in SPB/19 which have already been considered by the AO. The aforesaid factual finding was not controverted by the ld. DR. Therefore we fully agree with the reasons given by the ld. CIT-A - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 1203 &1223/Kol /2013, C.O. No. 94/Kol /2013 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2017 - Shri Aby. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealers (P) Ltd. on 25.02.2009 such survey not being on Shree Prakash Bagla and your appellant and such papers having been found and impounded from the possession / custody of Magna Dealers (P) Ltd. And not your appellant any such asst. And addition made u/s 153A/ 143(3) in the hands of your appellant without examining the persons surveyed and bringing any evidence on record is wholly bad, illegal and valid abinitio and is liable to be quashed / cancelled and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may kindly be held accordingly. 4. At the outset, it was observed that the ld AR in its appeal has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated and completed u/s 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the ld AR made his arguments at length at the time of hearing but at the conclusion of the hearing on this issue the ld AR agreed to the order of ld CIT(A) and did not challenge the validity of assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act. On the other hand, the ld DR relied on the order of authorities below. 5. In view of above factual position, we find no merit in the argument of the ld AR. Hence, the issue in the aforesaid grounds of appeal is hereby dismissed. 6. Last issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the submissions of the appellant as well as the material on record. The undisclosed sales for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 as determined by the AO in his assessment orders on the basis of the impounded material has not been contested by the appellant. The only dispute relates to the application of gross profit rate on such undisclosed sales. I find that the appellant had in his disclosure petition submitted before the DDIT(Inv) surrendered undisclosed profit by applying the gross profit rate of 1%. I find merit in the argument that the AO has brought no material on record to suggest that the gross profit rate of 1% was low as observed by him in his assessment orders. I find from the assessment orders that there is no material on record which even remotely suggests that the appellant had utilized the business establishment of Abhishek Enterprises or Songal Engineers for its unaccounted business. The AO has not explained in his assessment orders as to how he arrived at the conclusion that the business establishment of Abhishek Enterprises or Songal Engineers was utilized by the appellant for its unaccounted business. The AO has also not explained the basis for applyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. Now, the issue arises for adjudication to work out the income earned by the assessee from his undisclosed business. The assessee has offered gross profit on such undisclosed business @ 1% whereas the AO has taken gross profit @ of 4%. However, on perusal of assessment order, we find that the estimated rate @ of 4% towards the gross profit was adopted by the AO without adducing any reason. On the contrary, the ld. CIT(A) has reduced the rate of gross profit from of 4% to 1.5% by having reliance in the assessment order in the case of MDPL, engaged in the similar business, where the gross profit was shown @ less than 1.5% and the same was accepted by the Revenue. At the outset, we find that the AO has adopted the rate of gross profit without any basis. On the contrary, the ld CIT(A) has adopted the scientific approach for determining the gross profit on the undisclosed income. As such, we find no infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A) and we uphold the same. Hence, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 13. Next issue raised by the Revenue is that ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for ₹ 34 Lacs on account of investment made in the land. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,000/- are recorded in the impounded document SPB/19. I find merit in the argument that when the AO has considered all the receipts recorded in the impounded document SPB/19 while computing the undisclosed sales, then no separate addition can be made on account of payments recorded in such impounded documents as they have come out of the receipts already considered by the AO. I have already confirmed the undisclosed sales of ₹ 1,86,57,135/-, ₹ 7,67,35,863/- and ₹ 8,14,26,433/- in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10 as computed by the AO in his assessment orders. I have also upheld the order of the AO in assessing the gross profit on such undisclosed sales as well as addition on account of undisclosed investment. Under the circumstances, the cash payments as recorded in the impounded document SPB/19 has to be treated as made out of the receipts recorded in SPB/19 which have already been considered by the AO. in other words, the cash payments as recorded in the impounded document SPB/19 has to be treated as explained in view of the receipts recorded in SPB/19 which have already been considered by the AO. I agree with the appellant that no separate a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Tribunal fully agrees with the view expressed by AAC and has no other ground to record in support of its conclusion, it does not act illegally or irregularly, merely because it does not repeat the grounds of the AAC on which the decision was given against the assessee or the Department. Therefore we concur with the view of ld. CIT(A) and hence this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 18. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Coming to assessee s CO No.94/Kol/2013. 19. First issue raised in ground No. 1 is that the validity of the proceedings initiated completed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. For this, the assessee has raised the following ground:- 1. For that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was wholly wrong and unjustified in confirming the initiation of the proceeding u/s. 153A of the Act and the consequential order passed by the AO u/s 153A/143(3) inspite of the fact that there was no specific search warrant against the appellant assessee and as such thee was no valid search and further that the survey operation u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
