TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 894
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question of law seeking admission of the above Tax Case (Appeals):- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the estimated addition of income from business and jewellery business, in assessments concluded u/s.143(1) read with Section 153C of the Act?" 2. The assessee herein is engaged in the business of jewellery and money lending. A search was conducted in the business premises on 03.08.2005. It is stated that the assessee in his capacity as an individual returned income from jewellery business. The search revealed that the assessee had not disclosed income earned from money lending business in any of the returns and the assessee admitted additional amount from j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year 2000-01 itself. Thus, according to the Assessing Officer, onus was on the assessee to prove that the opening balance pertained to earlier years and not to the assessment year 2000-01. It is stated that the assessment in respect of all other assessment years were on the same pattern as mentioned in the assessment year 2000-01 except for an addition of Rs.95,48,810/- made in assessment year 2005-06 for unexplained stock in jewellery business. Though assessee had shown in his return of income for assessment year 2006-07 the value of unexplained surplus stock found on the date of search viz., Rs.95,48,810/-, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that surplus stock had to be shown in assessment year 2005-06 itself; thus, ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal contending that the assessee did not disclose any income from finance business/Sahukhari Byaj business in the returns filed prior to the date of search. Revenue further contended that the assessee was earning substantial interest income which were revealed from the records seized at the time of search, which included books of accounts of Sahukhari Byaj business. The Revenue contended that the assessee could not discharge his onus with regard to the opening balance as on 08.11.1999; thus, the deletion of addition by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was without any basis. 6. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal pointed out that admittedly, the assessee had shown income only from jewellery business i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....did not produce any material to show that opening balance as on 8.11.1999 as relatable to any earlier years, yet there was nothing to show that the opening balance as on 08.11.1999 was the income of the assessee for the assessment year 2000-01. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal pointed out that apart from the addition made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2000-01, for assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2005-06, the assessee had disclosed a sum of Rs.76,42,159/-. Considering these aspects, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal agreed with Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that there could be no addition for 2000-01, however, the Tribunal viewed that additions made by the Assessing Officer for interest earned by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld and silver jewellery for assessment year 2005-06, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal pointed out that the search was conducted in previous year 2005-06 relevant to assessment year 2006-07. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in taking the view that the excess stock found at the time of search could be considered for assessment only in the assessment years relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted, hence, assessable only for assessment year 2006-07. As the assessee had returned the income in the said assessment year, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the additions. The Income Tax Appellat....