TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the course of search, shares and debentures were found and seized. Some jewellery and cash were also found during the search operation, but in respect thereof, no seizure was made. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act ('the Act' for brevity) was served upon the assessee and block assessment was made and various additions were made. Few of these additions were deleted by the CIT(A) and some more additions were deleted by the Tribunal. Some of the additions are sustained till the level of the Tribunal, against which no appeals are preferred by the assessee. In these appeals which pertain to block assessment period 1-4-1989 to 18-11-1999, the Revenue has proposed to raise the following questions of law: "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax return filed by the wife of the assessee for the assessment year 1989-90. In support thereof, the assessment order of the income-tax return filed by the wife of the assessee was produced. 4. Insofar as cash is concerned, the assessee again produced the bank statement of M/s. Jagdamba Tobacco Co. (which firm belongs to the assessee). The CIT (A) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, he considered the question as to whether the fresh evidence is to be admitted under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Act. Observing that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to produce this evidence, the fresh evidence was admitted by the CIT(A) and on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, he recorded the finding of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer on account of unexplained investment made in shares and debentures. The case of the assessee was that the said shares and debentures were belonging to Shri Mitesh Patel and Smt. Jyotikaben Patel and in this manner, source of making the aforesaid investments were explained. The CIT(A) sent the matter to DDIT (Investigation)-I, Baroda, who submitted the detailed report after carrying out the investigation. Before him, the assessee had produced Shri Mitesh Patel and Smt. Jyotikaben Patel, who gave the statement on oath stating that the share certificates in question were in their respective names and these investments were made by them out of their funds. On the basis of this investigation, DDIT (Investigation)-I, Baroda concluded tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis of the diary seized from the premises of the assessee. While computing the peak credit, the Assessing Officer had arrived at an addition of Rs. 5,31,170 as being the excess outgo as per the diary. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 7,34,480 to the peak credit as appearing on 24-11-1995. The Tribunal had sustained the addition of Rs. 7,34,480, but deleted the addition of Rs. 5,31,170 on the ground that the addition of both the excess outgo as peak credits cannot be sustained in view of the fact that when computation of peak credit, the outgo would also be considered in the peak credit calculated on the continuous inflow and outflow of the funds, only once addition is called for. On this basis, higher of the two is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....co Co. It is also noticed that the survey in the case of M/s. Jagdamba Tobacco Co. has been conducted on 18-11-1999 and the search under section 158BC in the case of Shri Mitesh Patel in a case of survey, which has been converted into a search. Thus, what is noticed is that in the course of survey, the excess stock had been found and consequently in view of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of GMS Technologies referred to supra, where it has been held that in the block assessment, material found during the survey under section 133A can be used only if it has some relation with the material seized during the search, otherwise not, as also the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of GK Senniappa....