TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2925/Del/2013 and 2926/Del/2013. Whereas ITA 2453/Del/2013 was filed by the Revenue against an order dated 22nd February, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [hereafter 'CIT(A)] in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08, ITA 2925/Del/2013 was Assessee's cross appeal against the said order. ITA 2926/Del/2013 was filed by the Assessee impugning a separate order dated 22nd February, 2013 passed by the CIT(A) in respect of the AY 2008-09. Concededly, the material facts for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 necessary for addressing the disputes are similar and, therefore, the ITAT had proceeded to examine and decide the appeals in the context of the facts as obtaining for AY 2007-08. 4. Briefly stated, the subject controversy arises consequent to a survey conducted under Section 133A of the Act on the Assessee's premises on 26th February, 2009. Apparently, the survey was conducted simultaneously with the search and seizure operations conducted in relation to one Sh. Ram Hari Ram and Orchid Group. 5. It is stated that during the aforesaid survey, loose papers pertaining to the Assessee were found and impounded. The learned counsel for the Revenue has contended that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e above basis, the AO made an addition of Rs. 2,68,11,454/- under Section 68 of the Act as undisclosed income of the Assessee. Addition on the similar basis was also made in respect of AY 2008-09. 8. The Assessee appealed against the assessment orders passed before the CIT(A). The Assessee also challenged the reopening of the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessee contended that it was never informed of the non-service of notice under Section 133(6) of the Act. It was further submitted that on its part, the representative of the Assessee had visited the office of M/s Smridhi Sponge Limited and sought a confirmation from them as to the transaction of the Assessee. The Assessee had further downloaded information regarding the overdraft facility enjoyed by M/s Smridhi Sponge Limited and also sought to produce the same before CIT(A). The Assessee also downloaded the Balance Sheet of M/s Smridhi Sponge Limited, which disclosed the outstanding balance of Rs. 1,22,04,722/- against M/s Galaxy Exports Pvt. Ltd. The Assessee sought to produce various documents before the CIT(A) and for the purposes filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ited. Further, the Assessee had immediately undertaken a search through internet and had collected the details about M/s Smridhi Sponge Limited which included its office address, company registration number, PAN number and particulars of its Directors and forwarded the same to the AO. In addition, since the document contained a reference to Galaxy, the Assessee had also made enquiries and had provided the details of Galaxy Exports Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors. Further, the Assessee had also provided the bank accounts maintained by Galaxy Exports Pvt. Ltd. with Punjab National Bank, Jamshedpur Branch from which two cheques mentioned in the impounded documents had been encashed. 12. The Assessee requested the AO to undertake the necessary enquiry from banks and other sources, the particulars of which were provided by the Assessee. The ITAT also observed that the Assessee had provided the details of the balance sheet, auditor.s report etc. of M/s Smridhi Sponge Limited and also pointed out that the final accounts of M/s Smridhi Sponge Limited disclosed transactions with Galaxy Exports which was a company dealing in iron ore. Subsequently, the Assessee had also produced a letter from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT has erred in not setting aside the deletion of Rs. 1,47,78,159 ordered by the CIT(A) and in further deleting the Gross Profit addition of Rs. 20,60,108/- and Rs. 99,73,187 on account of Capital requirements which had been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), out of total addition of Rs. 2,68,11,454/-, made by the AOon the basis of the impounded documents. ii, WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in not taking proper cognizance of provisions of Section 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in correct perspective, as the evidence was impounded not only from the premises of the assessee, but from the Computer of the assessee? iii. WHETHER on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in holding that the heavy onus cast upon the assessee by virtue of the provisions of section stood discharged by the assessee by simply denying any connection with the information found on its computer and then by reference to certain internet based general information, despite the facts that the evidence impounded u/s 133A was based on some documents found in the computer system o....