TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c disclosure of ₹ 2.52 Crores but the Ld. A.O. has not given the same because he has opined that the adhoc disclosure of ₹ 2.52 . crores was made in the A.Y. 2012-13 and ₹ 1.99 crores is pertaining to A.Y. 2006-07. It is pertinent to mention here that the said seized paper does not contain any date. Respectfully following the case of Rajasthan High Court [1972 (11) TMI 20 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] since the Adhoc disclosure of ₹ 2.52 crores was made with a rider that any undisclosed income/transaction/entry found during the course of the block assessment proceedings shall be set off against this disclosure, the appellant is entitled for the legitimate claim. - Decided in favour of assessee - IT(SS)A. No. 375/AHD/2014 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2018 - Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Appellant by: Shri S. N. Soparkar Parin Shah Respondent by : Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT/DR ORDER Per Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad dated 22.08.2014 pertaining to A.Y. 2006-07 and following grounds have been taken: 1) In la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. On the other hand, the assessee s contention was before the lower authorities was as follows: 2.1 On 21/22.07.2011, the residential premises as well as the business premises of the appellant was subjected to search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the IT Act. During the course of search proceedings, the statements made of the group persons i.e. Motibhai Revabhai Prajapati (brother), Shri Kanlibhai Revabhai Prajapati (self), Bhagvanbhai Revabhai Prajapati (brother) were recorded. The group leaders (Supra) have made disclosure of ₹ 40 Crore in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act. During the course of search proceedings, various incriminating materials relating to the appellant as well as appellant group concerns were found and seized. 2.2 The appellant is a regular appellant of the Department and filing regular return of income since long back. He has filed his original return of income showing total income of ₹ 12,48,340/- on 15.12.2006. In consequence of search and seizure action took place, the appellant was served with a notice u/s. 153A(l)(a) of the Act. In response thereto, the appellant has filed block return of income showing total inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income along with notes is enclosed on Page no.___. The appellant has claimed this entry of ₹ 1.99 crores as set-off against the Adhoc disclosure of ₹ 2.52 Crores but the Ld. A.O. has not .given the same because he has opined that the adhoc disclosure ofRs. 2.52 crores was made in the A.Y. 2012-13 and ₹ 1.99 crores is pertaining to A.Y. 2006-07. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the legitimate set off. 2.6 Here, it is submitted that while showing the disclosure of ₹ 40 crores in the block returns of income, the appellant was not in a position to foresee the exact assessment yearwise and concern-wise disclosure to the extent of ₹ 7,55 crores and the appellant and his brothers were not interested in retracting the disclosure. Therefore, they have decided to show 1/3 of the disclosure (1/3 of s. 7.55 crores) in the hands of the appellant as well as in the hands of the 2 brothers on Adhoc basis with a rider that any undisclosed income/transaction/entry worked out during the course of the block assessment proceedings may kindly be set off against this disclosure. The appellant and his brothers could not foresee that the entry/transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R.(Kantibhai R. Prajapati) as appearing. The Ld. A.O. has asked the explanation in respect thereof. In respect to the above, the appellant has submitted that the entries regarding KR is duly incorporated in the books of account No. 2 prepared to disclose the additional income in the hands of the various partnership-firms of the Madhav Group Concerns. However, the entry in the name of BS appearing is not pertaining to the appellant. However, to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation, the appellant has owned up the entry regarding BS. It is important to note that while arriving total disclosure of ₹ 40 Crores in the hands of the appellant as well as in the hands of the various group concerns of the Madhav Group, the appellant and the Madhav Group concern could worked out the total disclosure to the extent of ₹ 32.45 Crores only on the basis of incriminating material. The balance of ₹ 7.55 crores was offered as Adhoc in equal sharing of 3 brothers i.e. the appellant, his brothers Shri Motibhai Prajapati and Bhagwanbhai Prajapati. The Adhoc disclosure shown in the return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 with a rider that any undisclosed entry/income/transaction worked durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
