AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 1177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in not appreciating that no income from attached assets can be assessed in the hands of the appellant. 3.The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in making disallowance on account of prior period expenses amounting to Rs. 7,309/-. 4.The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,90,000/- on account of declaration made u/s. 132(4) of the Act. 5.The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,44,500/ - on account of unexplained credit. 6.The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and in facts in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234 B and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of declaration made u/s. 132(4) of the Act.During the course of assessment proceedings,the AO noted that after search at various premises of the group,Harshad Mehta,vide his letter dt.2.6.92,had offered an additional income of Rs. 100 cr. u/s. 132(4) of the Act as additional income on behalf of his family members and the group concerns.The AO further observed that the disclosure was made in excess of what has been disclosed by the group entities in their returns of income, that no bifurcation of undisclosed income had been filed. In the original assessment proportionate addition of Rs. 3.90 lacs had been made on the basis of advance tax paid by the assessee. The AO required the assessee to explain as to why similar addition should not be ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne of the group cases, that the Tribunal, had deleted the addition that was part of declaration made u/s. 132(4) of the Act.Departmental Representative(DR)supported the order of the FAA and stated that income should not be below the declared income.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that in the case of Late Harshad S. Mehta (Legal Heir Jyoti S. Mehta) 5518/Mum/2007 AY-1988-89 and Ors dt.2.1.2008 similar issue was discussed as under :- "5.30 The last ground No.24 relates to the assessee's grievance against the addition of Rs. 25,OO,OOO made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of declaration u/s.l32(4)of the Act. 5.31 It is, submitted by the learned Chartered Accountant that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. If the Assessing Officer was to accept the declaration made by the assessee, then he should not have made other additions outside books of account. Therefore, there is force in the argument of the assessee on this point. The Assessing Officer may determine the total income either on the basis of estimation or on the basis of the declaration of the assessee. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the addition of Rs. 25,OO,OOO needs to be deleted. We order accordingly." Respectfully following the above order we direct the AO to determine the total income of the assessee either on the basis of estimation or on the basis of declaration made by the assessee. Following the order of Late Harshad S. Mehta-Legal H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed by the assessee could not be accepted,that the assessee had not proved that it was prevented by a reasonable cause for not filing the evidence before the AO during the assessment proceed - ings.He held that the difference of Rs. 3.44 lacs was not reconciled by the assessee.Finally,he upheld the order of the AO. 9.During the course of hearing before us,the AR stated that assessee had filed details called for by AO during the assessment proceedings, that vide its letter dt.30.11.2006 it had filed a reconci -liation statement,that the AO had discussed about the said letter. He referred to the P&L account filed by the assessee wherein the said amount of Rs. 3.44 lacs was appearing. The DR supported the order of the FAA. 10.We have ....