TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal has committed an error in not assessing the profit of the assessee on the said transaction?" Neglecting all the details the precise fact leading to the filing of the present appeal is that a search and seizure operation was conducted on December 17, 1991. During the course of search various books of account and documents marked as NBD-1 to NBD-28, JMB 1 to JMB 36 and JMB-1 to JMB 12 were seized. Some documents/papers, etc. were also seized at the residence of Shri Raj Kumar Deorah, Zoo Road, Gauhati. The documents marked SD-20, SD-71 and SD-245 relate to the present respondents (assessee/M/s. S.B Industries, Amerigog, 9th Mile, Meghalaya for the assessment year 1991-92). For the entries marked K and P appearing in the register ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and disposed of by judgment and order dated September 7, 1995, wherein it has been held that the addition of Rs. 2,82,72,555 was wholly misconceived and accordingly, the same is deleted and also the addition of Rs. 1,10,000 is also deleted. The Revenue authority challenged the said order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench. The Tribunal had finally disposed of the appeals by passing judgment and order dated December 17, 2002, wherein the Tribunal took the view that the entire purchase reflected in the seized register marked SD-71 cannot certainly be considered as representing the profits of the assessee. The learned Tribunal also further held that the statements of profits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nitial burden was on the assessee to explain the said transaction amounting to Rs. 2,82,72,555. In the present case, there is a clear finding that the assessee was not able to explain the transaction. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding the aforesaid amount to the income of the assessee under the head 'Income from undisclosed sources'. The Tribunal fell in error in holding that the Assessing Officer was only unjustified in making the said addition. The Tribunal was not justified in recording that the entire purchases reflected in the seized register cannot certainly be considered as representing the profits of the assessee. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have remanded/restored the matter b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer had estimated the net profit suppressed out of the unrecorded sales as at Rs. 1,10,000 on the basis of the assessee's income shown in the return filed. If the Tribunal was not in agreement with such an estimate, it ought to have remanded/restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal's finding estimating the profit at Rs. 50,000 is vitiated by perversity." Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, strenuously submitted that the account of Rs. 2,82,72,555 shown in the entries marked F and K in the seized documents marked SD-71 cannot be taken as the total amount of transaction at one time. In support of his contention, learned counsel further submits that the entire amount of Rs.....