TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings conducted on 19th Sept., 1986, various books of accounts along with cash, gold ornaments, silver, National Saving Certificates, fixed deposits, etc. were found. The statements of the partners were recorded in the course of search and all the partners had admitted that the valuables seized belonged to themselves and their family members and they were to make appropriate disclosure in respect of unexplained valuables. On the basis of their statements the firm declared additional income of Rs. 21.04 lakhs for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1987-88 on 31st Sept., 1986. The assessee filed revised returns for the assessment years already completed and fresh returns for the assessment years where no returns had been filed. Besides cash and jew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been included in the assessment of the partners. Therefore, the income representing the seized assets and the unaccounted expenditure and investment substantive assessments were made in the hands of the firm and no separate addition was made in the assessment of the partners. 4. The first ground of appeal for all the years is against the estimated addition in respect of business income over and above what had been already declared in the returns of the income in different assessment years. The position is as under: Asst. yr Income declared Addition made 1986-87 72,000 28,000 1984-85 73,398 36,602 1983-84 69,009 40,991 1982-83 71,514 30,485 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1986-87 80,000 28,800 108,000 120,000 12,000 1984-85 87,400 2,600 90,000 105,000 15,000 1983-84 69,016 11,984 81,000 96,000 15,000 1982-83 37,150 34,850 72,000 84,000 12,000 1981-82 52,800 10,200 63,000 75,000 12,000 1980-81 37,000 20,000 57,000 69,000 12,000 1979-80 36,039 14,961 51,000 61,000 10,000 1978-79 37,559 7,441 45,000 55,000 10,000 When the matter was taken to the CIT(A) he held that the withdrawals in different years is quite reasonable and therefore he deleted all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his addition as made. 10. The assessee in his returns had claimed benefit of Amnesty Scheme. It is notable that Amnesty Scheme in fact offered the assessee amnesty on penalty and interest under the Income-tax (sic-Act) provided the assessees made disclosure full and final. In this assessment year interest under ss. 217 and 139 were charged. Proceedings under ss. 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c) and 273 were initiated. When the matter was taken to the CIT(A) he relied upon the circular of the CBDT No. 451, dt. 17th Feb., 1986. He held that no assets were found or detected in the course of search in the case of this assessee and the seized books of accounts did not indicate any positive concealment of income or investment in various assets. He found t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applied. The Department is in appeal on all the grounds before us not only in this year and in all years also on similar grounds, except the ground of appeal No. 5 where the Department has challenged the order of the CIT(A) with regard to his order regarding the Amnesty Scheme all the other grounds are regarding the deletions of various additions made by the CIT(A). In all fairness the Departmental Representative submitted that the other grounds are only on account of estimation of income and the estimation made by the AO was reasonable. He however, very vehemently argued against the order of the CIT(A) with regard to the application of Amnesty Scheme. The assessee's counsel, however, strongly relied on the order of the CIT(A) and submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount. Except for the statement of the partners there is nothing on the record to prove that the disclosure of income made in the hands of the firm is actually the income of the firm. There is no material on record or iota of evidence on record to prove that the offer of additional income made by the assessee in the hands of the firm is based on some material in possession of the Department. 12. We have gone through the contents of questions No. 7, 12, 19, and 30 of the Board's Circular dt. 17th Feb., 1986. We have also gone through the clarifications sent by the CBDT to the CIT, Ranchi. We are of the opinion that in this case though the seizures were made and the investments were found in the hands of the partners there is no material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
