TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in deleting the sales inflation figure from the assessee's income though the accounts were duly audited by the Auditor who never raised this point in the audit report and the management has certified the accounts as true and correct?" Subsequently, a Coordinate Bench, while hearing the appeal on 11th May, 2016 formulated another point, which in the opinion of the Bench also involved substantial question of law. This question was formulated as:- "Whether the order directing the assessing officer to exclude the amount of Rs. 2,90,43,971/- and Rs. 5,90,21,000/- being the sales and fictitious income from the total income for the two block periods is perverse ?" The Tribunal, in its decision under appeal had directed the assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccount of spurious bill discounting facilities availed of by the assessee, be excluded from the total income of the assessee. The A.O. would, however, ascertain the amounts under consideration mainly from the report of the special auditors. The assessee should also be allowed ample opportunity to put forward its case with proper figures and evidences before the A.O. we direct accordingly. Following the said line, therefore, so far as this issue is also concerned, we restore the issue back to the file of the A.O. for the purpose of ascertaining the amounts of inflated sales included in the accounts of the assessee mainly from the report of Special Auditors and to deduct the same from the figure of sale. Needless to say that the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.01.2003 & 09.01.2003 is that the figure of sales inflation and bill discounting for the period Sept. 1995 to March 1996 was not included in the above figure. The assessee's claim is rejected due to reference of the ITAT order." (quoted verbatim) The dispute travelled to the Tribunal in the form of appeal for the second time at the instance of the assessee. The Tribunal's decision delivered on 19th May, 2006 in the two appeals preferred by the assessee, being IT (SS) A Nos. 174 and 175 (Kol) of 2004 is under challenge before us. The assessee wanted exclusion of Rs. 8,80,84,971/- from the computation of total undisclosed income for the two block periods, the break-up being Rs. 2,90,43,971/- and Rs. 5,90,21,000/-. In this decision deliver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed that there is nothing on record which demonstrates that the figures directed to be excluded had not been disputed by the assessing officer. Mr.Khaitan, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, however, submits that the assessing officer did not undertake the exercise as directed by the Tribunal beyond the period subjected to special audit and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned decision. As regards the two questions framed, the thrust of the learned counsel for the parties has been on the second one (formulated on 11th May 2016). On the first question, we accept the reasoning of the Tribunal that merely because the assessee's income was audited by the chartered accountants in regular process, there cannot b....