TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, and ending on the date of search, i.e., 17th Nov., 1999. 2.1 The facts concerning this ground are that for the financial year 1999-2000, that is, upto the date of search, the assessee had disclosed an income of Rs. 1,50,000 in its return for the block period. Besides this income, the assessee also declared a sum of Rs. 19,150 as income in the regular return. Since the assessee had not maintained regular books of account, no books were seized by the Department. The assessee was required to explain as to why the said income be not included in the return for the block period as undisclosed income. It was stated on behalf of the assessee that though regular books of account were not found and seized by the Department, the bill books issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erusing the relevant material on record, it is found that the assessee had voluntarily declared undisclosed income at Rs. 1,50,000 for the period 1st April, 1989, upto the date of search as undisclosed income. It is a fact that the amount of Rs. 19,150 was income from trading operations relevant to the aforesaid period which was deduced by the assessee from the seized material and was meant for normal disclosure. Since the income pertained to the financial year in progress at the time of search and the due date for filing the return was yet to expire, we are satisfied that this income should not have been included in the block assessment, as the return was filed by the assessee under s. 139(1). In the case of Krishnagopal Nagpal vs. Dy. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by Sh. Raj Kumar, the AO proceeded to estimate the income from catering business. After taking note of an amount of Rs. 4.74 lakhs disclosed by the assessee on account of catering income in the block period, the learned AO estimated further leakage at Rs. 1,50,000. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee went in appeal on this issue as well and the learned CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 50,000. The assessee in its second ground is aggrieved against the sustenance of the balance addition of Rs. 50,000, whereas the Revenue has assailed the finding of the first appellate authority in which the relief of Rs. 1,00,000 was allowed. 3.2 After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is noted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
