2017 (10) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o dispose them off by way of this common order. 2. Briefly stated facts are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short called as the "Act") on 11.11.2010 was conducted in Tinna Group of cases, wherein various books of account/documents were seized. Pursuant to the notice issued u/s 153C/153A of the Act on 19.11.2012, assessee stated that, the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act may be treated as return filed in that respect. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act by orders dated 28.03.2013. For the AY 2009-10 AO discussed the additions on account of the alleged bogus claim of expenditure in respect of purchase of blown bitumen and also transport expe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment for the AY 2006-07 is time barred and AO did not have jurisdiction to frame such assessment. On that score, we quash the assessment for the year 2006-07. 6. Now coming to the AY 2009-10, AO made an addition of Rs. 39,48,963/- on account of disallowance of transportation expenses and a sum of Rs. 30 lacs on account of bogus purchases. On this aspect the facts are that at the time of search a criminal complaint dated 18.12.2008 by one Bhupinder Kumar Sekhri addressed to the Commission of Police (Chennai) was found, wherein it was alleged that the company claimed excessive expenditure during the period between 30.04.2005 and 14.11.2008 and so also there is no Mahesh Roadways at all. Basing on this and also on the statement of Bhupind....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 199, PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (Delhi High Court) 395 ITR 526 and PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 397 ITR 82, Ld. AR argued that a statement recorded u/s 132(4) can form basis for a block assessment only if such statement relates to any incriminating evidence of undisclosed income unearthed during search and mere statement cannot be held as un incriminating material and additions solely on the basis of statement recorded during the course of search cannot be made. He also placed reliance on CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 357 ITR 146, CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metals Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 361 ITR 10, CIT vs. FCS International Marketing Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 203 CTR 601, ACIT vs. Anima Inv....