TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dshahar Road Industrial Area, Ghazibad, as against 24,555 kgs of supari shown in the stock register, on physical verification 27475.9 kgs. of supari was found. The assessee explained the difference of 1921 kg. of supari, as under: "the stock of supari as on 1-4-2008 was at 25555 kg. Which was in accordance with the stock register. This was the correct position of stock of Supari. However, the excise department took stock of supari at 27475.9 kg. Without weighment and on estimate basis". 4. Rejecting the explanation furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer adopted average cost of supari at Rs. 115/- per kg. And added the value of 1920 kgs of supari amounting to Rs. 2,20,800/-, as undisclosed investment in stock u/s 69 of the I.T. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all other items except supari are the same both in the stock register and in the loose sheet statement found during the survey. It is pertinent to note here that the legal presumption enshrined in section 292C is also applicable in the cases of documents found during survey u/s 133A according to which it is presumed (i) That such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) That contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) That the signature and every other part of books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against the assessee. In the case of Surendera M. Khandhar v. ACIT [2010] 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) it has been held by the Bombay High Court that the assessee having failed to rebut the presumption under section 292C, addition under section 69 on the basis of document seized from the possession of assessee was rightly made by AO and sustained by the Tribunal. As has been observed by the AO in the instant case, the appellant has simply stated that the quantitative details of supari as on 01/04/2008 as reflected in the loose sheet statement found during the survey is based on estimation by the excise authorities without leading any cogent evidence to prove the same. It is, therefore, held that the appellant has failed to rebut the presumption u/s 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue was found. Ld. counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: - CIT Vs. Anil Bhatia (2010) 322 ITR 191 (Del.) - CIT Vs. Hanuman Oil & General Mills (2009) 184 Taxman 500 (P&H) - M. Kanti Lal Expors Vs. ACIT (2011) 330 ITR 185 (Guj.) - Surendra M. Khandhar Vs. ACIT (2010) 321 ITR 254 (Bom.). 7. Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below. He further placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hiren Vasantla Shah Vs. ACIT (2012) 19 Taxmann. Com 241 ( Guj.), holding that on the basis of material recovered during search, lower authorities had rightly drawn presumption in terms of sec. 292C. 7.1. Ld. DR further submitted that during his statement recorded at the time of su....