TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 62,27,305/- declared by him be accepted and the assessment be completed. From perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also, it is evident that the dispute was only with regard to rate of gross profit on the income which was not disclosed by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has disobeyed the direction contained in the order passed by the Tribunal. - I.T.A. NO.1 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 8-1-2020 - THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI APPELLANT: SRI. SHANKAR A, SENIOR COUNSEL, SRI. M. LAVA, ADV. RESPONDENT: SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV. JUDGMENT Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red an undisclosed income of ₹ 62,27,305/-. The Assessing Officer re-computed the income declared by the appellant and passed an order of assessment on 28.02.2005 under Section 158BC read with Section 143(3) of the Act for the block period 01.04.1996 to 23.01.2003, computing undisclosed income at ₹ 2,67,58,592/-. 4. The appellant filed an appeal against the order dated 28.02.2005 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) by an order dated09.04.2007 partly allowed the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt 4% gross profit on undisclosed turnover of 1.30 crores. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock and physical stock. It is also submitted that while making an addition of undisclosed income, the Assessing Officer has traveled beyond the scope of the directions issued by the Tribunal which is not permissible in law and therefore, nothing can be added in excess of ₹ 21,80,593/- and on the aforesaid amount, gross profit ought to have been determined at 2%. It is also submitted that order passed by the higher appellate authority should be followed by the subordinate authorities. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. AIR 1992 SC 711 AND ACCE Vs. DUNLOP INDIA LTD. 154 ITR 172(SC). Lastly, it is urged that by con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had returned an undisclosed income of ₹ 62,25,305/- in the block return of income filed on 14.07.2003. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Assessing Officer had made an addition of ₹ 2,67,58,592/-. The aforesaid addition was found to be unjustified by the Tribunal and in paragraph 10 of the order of Tribunal it was held as under: 10. The addition that has been made in the case of the firm was ₹ 41,40,870 and in the case of individual ₹ 2,67,58,592. When this is compared with the various seized documents of ₹ 62.27 lakhs and the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below and correlating them with the investments made over the years, it goes to indicate that the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
