TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 715
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rieved by the order of the learned Tribunal by which the addition of a sum of Rs. 4,82,750 on the ground of undisclosed income was upheld. The assessee has questioned the order of the learned Tribunal on the basis of the following question of law : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer that the amount of Rs. 4,82,750 was 'undisclosed' investment of the petitioner company by totally giving no credence to the fact produced by the petitioner company which were substantial in nature and thereafter the order passed by the learned Tribunal ignoring the relevant facts and in taking into consideration irrelevant materials ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found. (h) If the Tribunal in conducting the enquiry has acted in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or has violated the principles of natural justice, where no particular procedure is prescribed. 81. In any of the above cases and in any other case where the court, in the particular facts of the case, considers the finding of the Tribunal to be perverse and where the court is of the opinion that justice of the case so requires, the court is entitled to interfere and set aside the finding of the Tribunal on any question of fact. In such cases, the court holds that there is an error of law on any of the above grounds." 4. In the light of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5-1996 60,000 Nil 60,000 22-6-1996 7,61,653 3,10,000 4,51,655 24-6-1996 19,32,720 8,12,100 11,20,625 20-7-1996 5,16,600 1,86,600 3,30,000 30-7-1996 1,37,750 45,000 92,750 3. On being asked to explain the difference, the assessee stated that the difference of Rs. 60,000 in investment as on May 17, 1996 was the amount paid in cash out of M/s. Barelia Coke Industries and ultimately the transaction did not materialise. So no entry was recorded in the books. As regards the difference of Rs. 3,30,000 and Rs. 92,750 found in investment made on July 20, 1996 and July 30, 1996 respectively, the assessee claimed that it agreed to buy high land at the above price, but on inspection of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rue that the said land was low land and the assessee had to incur substantial expenditure in filling of the land and for the development of the land. The amount as per seized paper marked A/1 in respect of the transactions dated July 29, 1996 is Rs. 5,16,000. The addition of Rs. 3,30,000 is based on the material found in the search from which it is evident that this amount was paid over and above the amount shown in the deed. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that since the addition has been made on the basis of evidence found during the search, the addition was justified and he sustained the same. For the same reason, the addition made of Rs. 92,750 was also upheld. 5. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A-1/1, the amount for purchase of land is shown as Rs. 5,16,000. Further, this addition of Rs. 3,30,000 is based on the material found during the course of search. It is also an admitted fact that in the seized ledger marked A-3/31, the amount recorded in the books of account is Rs. 1,86,600 as against the amount shown in the seized paper at Rs. 5,16,600. Thus the fact of investment for purchase of land on the seized paper has been corroborated with the seized books of account. Further, it is also admitted fact that the paper was seized from the possession of the assessee and primarily it has to be presumed that it belongs to the assessee. As the fact of purchase of land as entered in the seized paper has been corroborated with that of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not have taken into account. To that also he was unable to give any answer, except that the sum of Rs. 60,000 was not paid by the assessee before us. But he does not dispute that from the records seized marked A- 1/1, it appeared that the sum of Rs. 60,000 was invested for the purpose of buying the land for the assessee and this sum was not debited to the books of account of the assessee. 7. Mr. Sen contends that this sum of Rs. 60,000 was not paid by the assessee. That amount was paid, according to him, by the sister concern of the assessee, namely, M/s. Barelia Coke Industries. Even assuming that the money was paid by the Barelia Coke Industries, the assessee should have in that case credited the account of Barelia and debited the acc....