9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship firm in existence during that year especially in view of the seized books of account which clearly reveal that the assessee was continuously doing pawning business outside its books of account right from the year 1981 to the date of search? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,15,000 made on account of undisclosed investment made by the assessee in the pawning business for the assessment year 1986-87 by holding that there was no partnership firm in existence during that year and, as such no addition could be made in that year especially in view of the seized books of account which clearly reveal that the assessee was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the advances of Rs. 14,15,000 in pawning business at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000 each for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1995-96 and Rs. 1,00,000 for the assessment year 1996-97. On appeal, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") deleted the additions of Rs. 25,000 made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1986-87, Rs. 6,15,000 in lieu of undisclosed investment made in pawning business for the assessment year 1986-87 and Rs. 21,00,000 on account of interest earned from pawning business for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97. The Tribunal held that the partnership firm came into existence on April 1, 1986, and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making an addition of Rs. 25,000 on acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons mentioned in these documents. Therefore, it seems that the aforesaid documents were related to the pawning business but it was the main grievance of the assessee that these documents were not confronted to the assessee on the basis of which addition was made. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no proper opportunity of being heard to the as was granted by the Assessing Officer. On this score alone, addition of Rs. 6,15,000 was uncalled for and deserves to be deleted. At the same time, we have already decided the additional ground and in view of the detailed findings given therein, we are of the opinion that no addition can be made for the assessment year 1986-87 on account of pawning business in the hands of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regards the other years also, no addition is called for because there is no material on record for the basis on which it could be said that the-Assessing Officer was justified, in his action. It is well settled that the provisions relating to search and seizure are intended to unearth the hidden or undisclosed income or property and bring it to taxation net. It is also not in dispute that the objective of Chapter XIV-B is to get hold of evidence having bearing on the tax liability of a person which the said person is seeking to withhold from the Assessing Officer but the scheme of Chapter XIV-B does not give power to the Revenue to draw presumption in regard to the undisclosed income. It is also a well settled proposition that the presumpt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
