2014 (6) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DER Per : D. K. Tyagi, Judicial Member:- This is the assessee's appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Gandhinagar dated 30-03-2010. 2. The assessee has taken following grounds:  "1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the addition of Rs. 16,07,462/- as undisclosed income on the basis of loose papers found and seized from Shri Chhaganbhai I. Patel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... date of search is prior to the proviso to Section 113 inserted with effect from 1/06/2002. Therefore, the levy of surcharge requires to be cancelled." 3. First three grounds relate to addition of Rs. 16,07,462/- as undisclosed income on the basis of loose papers found and seized from Sri Chhaganbhai I. Patel. 4. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 took p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s differences as undisclosed income. Since 1,76,024/- had already been offered, net addition of Rs. 16,07,462/- was made. This addition was deleted by Ld. CIT(A). When revenue went in appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, the matter was restored back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. In pursuance to the ITAT's order AO again repeated the same addition of Rs. 16,07,462/- which was confirmed by Ld. CI....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be confirmed in the facts of this case. Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of lower authorities. 6. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, we find that AO while making the addition of Rs. 16,07,462/- has placed reliance only on the seized document taking the sale difference as undisclosed income and reducing the same by Rs. 1,76,024/- offered by the assessee. We furt....