Appeal dismissed; Rs.3,50,000 treated as income under Section 69C; rolling charge and profit additions upheld

HC dismissed appellant's challenges and upheld Tribunal's additions. The court held the Rs.3,50,000 cash payment was rightly treated as income under Section 69C for AY 1994-95 because the appellant failed to prove the amount related to a sister concern or to other years. Additions for unrecorded rolling charges and for rolling receipts not shown in books were affirmed, since the appellant produced no evidence of corresponding expenses or book entries; CIT(A)'s 75% deduction was rejected. The Tribunal's gross-profit estimate of 8% on seized-document sales was deemed reasonable and affirmed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeals concern additions made to the taxable income of the appellant for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, based on a search and seizure operation at the premises of the appellant.

For A.Y. 1994-95:
The appellant challenged the addition of Rs.8,36,936/- in its income, arguing that the amount included purchases made by its sister concern. However, the appellant failed to provide evidence to support this claim, leading the Tribunal to calculate the undisclosed income at Rs.3,50,000/-. The Court upheld this decision, citing Section 69-C of the Act to deem the amount as the appellant's income.

The appellant also contested the addition of Rs.4,64,536/- for unrecorded rolling charges. Despite partial relief granted by the CIT (A), the Tribunal reinstated the full amount as the appellant failed to prove incurring expenses, resulting in no interference by the Court.

For A.Y. 1995-96:
The appellant disputed the addition of Rs.5,76,726/- for rolling charges received outside the books of account. The Tribunal restored 75% of the addition, as the appellant could not demonstrate the expenses were recorded, leading the Court to affirm the Tribunal's decision.

Additionally, the appellant challenged the gross profit calculation on sales shown in a seized document. The assessing officer assessed gross profit at 8%, reduced to 2% by the CIT (A), and then reinstated to 8% by the Tribunal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating the gross profit calculation at 8% was reasonable, with no valid reason for further reduction.

In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, along with any miscellaneous applications.

---