TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ential/business premises of Sahni Group of cases including the assessee by the Investigation Wing, Chandigarh on 11.09.2009. The copies of the seized documents were provided to the assessee and same was confirmed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer referred to the document A-3 (page 21) (Party-B-4 impounded from the business premises of the assessee) and noted that these documents are hand written pages and contain the details of payment received on various dates. Scanned copy of these documents are reproduced in the assessment order in para 4. The expenses recorded on these documents are as follows:- i) Rs. 7,65,695/- on the front side of page 21 financial year 2006-07 relevant to assessment year 2007-08) ii) Rs. 8,11,490/- on back side of page 21 financial year 2005-06 relevant to assessment year 2006-07) 5. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish following information:- a) Please furnish the names and address of the persons from whom the payment as mentioned in the document scanned above, has been received. b) Please mention the nature of receipt as well as mode of receipts. c) Please produce ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition. 8. We have heard ld. Representatives of both the parties. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and submitted that Assessing Officer has considered the details contained in the seized paper as 'payments received' on various dates and also given notice to the assessee considering the same to be the payments received by the assessee. However, he has made addition on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act, therefore, addition may be deleted. He has submitted that ld. CIT (Appeals) should have admitted the additional evidence which is in the form of certificate from Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Solan and relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram vs. CIT 262 CTR 118 in which the assessee having filed certain documents before Supreme Court for the first time which are of some relevance and required to be looked into by the High Court. Therefore, matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal after accepting the documents filed by the assessee. 8(i) On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that seized documents were supplied to the assessee which have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional evidence because in the certificate of Secretary, Agriculture Market Produce Committee, Solan, it is nowhere clarified as to how the contents of the same were relevant to the matter in issue. It merely explains the identification of firms' names instead of writing full name. Since assessee failed to explain as to how the additional evidence was relevant to the matter in issue, we are of the view ld. CIT (Appeals) correctly refused to admit the same at appellate stage. However, considering the totality of the above findings, it is clear that addition is wholly unjustified in the matter. We, therefore, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the addition of Rs. 8,11,490/-. This ground of appeal of the assessee to that extent is allowed. 10. On ground No. 2, assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 78,577/- under section 69C of the Act and also challenged the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) in not admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules. The Assessing Officer has referred to document A-2 (Page 9 and 12) (Party-B-4 impounded from the business premises of the assessee). The Assessing Officer noted that the seized documents are hand written pages and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itten and contained the details of construction material purchased but no reply have been filed before Assessing Officer. Affidavit of Shri Javed Akhtar is filed who claims to be contractor, however, no information of 'Micky' of Solan have been given. There is a change in address given in the affidavit therefore, same could not be admitted for lack of authenticity. The ld. CIT (Appeals), on merit also confirmed the addition. 13. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that affidavit is self serving and cannot be considered as additional evidence. 14. On consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of authorities below. It is not in dispute that seized paper was recovered from possession of the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that the seized paper contains the details of construction material purchased which is connected with the business activity of the assessee. The assessee did not file any reply before Assessing Officer in response to show cause notice as to why the same be not treated as unexplained expenditure under sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned by the assessee before authorities below. Therefore, the same would not be relevant to the matter in issue and is clearly filed to avoid the payments of legitimate taxes. The ld. CIT (Appeals), therefore, rightly rejected the admission of the affidavit at the appellate stage. 15. Considering the above discussion in the light of provisions of Section 292C, it is clear that assessee has made purchases of construction material which belong to the business of the assessee and in the absence of any plausible explanation, the authorities below were justified in making the addition under section 69C of the Act. No infirmity have been pointed out in the orders of authorities below. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee. Same is accordingly, dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Assessment Year : 2007-08 17. On ground No. 1, assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 7,65,695/- under section 69C of the Act and challenged the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) in not admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules which is certificate of the Secretary of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Solan. The ld. CIT (A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer that this document did not belong to the assessee and from the contents of the document, it appears that same relate to purchase of dry fruits and other items such as press, induction cooker etc. The same did not belong to the assessee. The Assessing Officer, however, noted that assessee has merely denied that document did not belong to him but the same cannot discharge his responsibility. The assessee has not brought any material on record to explain the seized document in response to the show cause notice issued for making addition under section 69 of the Act. The assessee did not file any explanation before Assessing Officer. Therefore, addition was made under section 69C of the Act. 23. The assessee reiterated same submissions before ld. CIT (Appeals) and also filed affidavit under Rule 46A of the Act of Shri Joginder Behal, copy of which is filed at page 7 of Paper Book in which he owned the contents of the seized document and explained that inadvertently he has left the seized paper at the premises of the assessee. The ld. CIT (Appeals), however, did not accept admission of the additional evidence and even on merit, confirmed the addition. 24. Ld. Representatives of bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2008-09 and 2009-10. In the absence of depreciation in financial year 2008-09 and 2009-10, the net profit ratio would have been 2.78% and 4.85% respectively which is almost same as in earlier years. 25(i) It was further submitted that later on projects of the assessee were at partial completion stage and sales have been booked and the fixed expenses such as staff salary, electricity expenses etc. cannot be avoided as they occur throughout the year. Therefore, net profit shown by the assessee is correct. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept explanation of the assessee and noted that NP rate remained high in earlier year is not acceptable and by rejecting the Profit and Loss Account, recasted the profit and by applying average net profit rate of two years, made above addition of Rs. 18,77,319/-. 26. The ld. CIT (Appeals) also confirmed the addition and dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. 27. After considering rival submissions, we are of the view addition is wholly unjustified. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account and no specific defects in maintenance of the books of account have been found....