TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CITA has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,67,133/- on account of unaccounted expenditure u/s 69C of the Act by way of payment of interest to Sh. Ramesh Nikhanj and family and Sh.H.S. Chadha & family. 4. It is prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be cancelled and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard or disposed off." 3. The ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 8 lacs. 4. The brief facts of the case are that search and seizure operations were carried out under section 132 of the Act at the residential of the assessee and also at poultry farm located at V & PO Kot Billa, District Panchkula. During the course of search and seizure operations, the books of account of the assessee company and related documents were found and seized. Subsequently notice under section 158BC of the Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee furnished return of income for the block period. During the course of search Annexure A-8, page Nos.39 to 42 were seized from the residential....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nter No.HR 38C-2281 which was parked in the premises of the assessee when the search party arrived in the morning of 20.7.2000. On the remaining pages of the diary also, various figures of daily production of eggs were mentioned. The tabulated details of page-wise figures are available under para 4.1 at pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer had assumed that the said figures related to the figures before 20.7.2000 but after 1.4.2000 and the figures related to the production of eggs for various dates. The Assessing Officer computed gross number of eggs produced during the period at Rs. 1,18,22,689/-, whose value @ Rs. 1/-per egg was worked out to Rs. 1,18,22,689/-. As per the books of account the sale account declared total sale of Rs. 72,36,275/- and difference of Rs. 45,86,414/- as on the date of search of the sale of eggs for the period 1.4.2000 to 20.7.2000 were worked out. The assessee was asked to furnish the details and reconcile the figures contained in the diary with the books of account. In reply the assessee stated that the said diary contained rough calculations made by the staff members and rough papers had no evidentiary value. The Assessing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ideration. Further there was totaling error and that correct total worked out to 84,34,627/- and not 1,18,22,689. As against the correct total, the assessee had shown production of eggs at 88,94,868 and it was contended that the figures jotted down in Annexure A-12 were not reliable. The plea of the assessee was that not only various figures jotted down without any date or day or the nature of figures, contained nothing of any substance and were in the nature of dumb figures. Further the learned A.R. for the assessee stated that how could the Assessing Officer presume that the figures related to the period prior to 20.7.2000 when there were no dates mentioned against the so-called figures of production. With regard to 40,000 eggs found loaded at the premises of the assessee, it was contended by the learned A.R. for the assessee that the truck being found at the premises of the assessee before the survey team entered the premises and there was no merit in the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the sale of 47,000/- eggs was unaccounted for in the books of account and the stock was accordingly reworked. The learned A.R. for the assessee further explained the process of eggs hatc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-disclosed income of the assessee for the previous year 2000-01. The plea of the assessee was that these were pre-receipted receipts and the same were not returned by oversight. The assessee claimed that the amount of Rs. 8 lacs was still outstanding in the books of the assessee as also in the books of M/s Oberoi Plastics Ltd. and consequently there was no merit in any addition. 14. We find no merit in the plea of the assessee in view of the factum of receipts found from the possession of the assessee for the return of loan by the assessee to Shri Anil Oberoi. The said loan was returned in cash. The receipts were found from the possession of the assessee during the course of search carried out at the residential premises of the assessee on 20.7.2000 and the same evidences the transaction of payment of money by the assessee. The assessee had failed to offer any explanation vis-à-vis the source of the payment of said amount of Rs. 8 lacs repaid by the assessee. We find no merit in the claim of the assessee that the loan of Rs. 8 lacs was still outstanding in its books of account and the books of account of M/s Oberoi Plastics Ltd. Further the un-disclosed income declared by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellate proceedings that even the total of the figures was incorrect and the Assessing Officer had failed to consider both the opening and closing stock while computing the sales in the hands of the assessee. The addition on this account also is deleted. The documents seized during the course of search at best are dumb documents and cannot be relied upon to make the aforesaid addition. Upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) we dismiss the ground of appeal No.2 raised by the Revenue. 17. The ground No.3 raised by the Revenue is linked to the issue in ground No.1(v) of IT(SS)A No.4/Chd/2007. We have adjudicated the issue in the said appeal vide order of even date and the findings are as under: "25. The issue in ground of appeal No.1(v) raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 8,77,156/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was the Director of M/s Brinsar India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Brinsar Foods Pvt. Ltd. During the course of search and seizure operations, certain documents were found, which contained details of computation of interest payment made by the two companies to the assessee. The relevant documents were part of Annexure A-13, page Nos.3,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o groups of families and was worked out by the Department on the basis of documents, diaries and other material found and seized from the residence of Shri Romesh Nikhanj. The assessee thus claims that whatever was undisclosed or unaccounted on the basis of seized documents including A-13 has been disclosed and assessed in the hands of the AOP which includes the assessee and his family members and Shri Romesh Nikhaj and his family members. 19. The second plea of the assessee was against the addition on account of alleged interest for and from assessment year 1996-97 to assessment year 2001-02 being made on hypothetical basis. The assessee explained before the CIT(A) that no material or documents were found / seized during the course of search relating to these years. In the absence of any evidence found, the addition relating to assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-01 were to be deleted. Regarding the assessment years 1993-94 and 1995-96, the claim of the assessee was that the same had been included in the peak amount and accepted in the hands of the AOP of Romesh Nikhanj and assessee. 20. Before the CIT(A), assessee also elaborately explained the figures of interest relating to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of interest earned and ploughed back upto 23.11.1994 which in turn is claimed to have been worked out by the investigation wing of the I.T. department. e) The basis of working the disclosures of Rs. 95.77 lakhs in the hands of AOP was the entries in documents and diaries and other material found including A-13 and seized from the residence of Romesh Nikhanj, which are also the basis for making additions in the hands of assessee. f) Whatever was undisclosed or unaccounted income either in the hands of the assessee and his family members and Shri Romesh Nikhaj and his family members on the basis of seized documents was disclosed in the hands of AOP and nothing remains to be assessed in the hands of assessee and his family members and Shri Romesh Nikhanj and his family members. g) As regards assessment years 1995-96 (w.e.f. 24.11.1994) to assessment year 2001-02, the addition has been worked out on hypothetical basis and no material or documents were found or seized during the course of search relating to these years. h) Regarding assessment year 1993-94 to part of assessment year 1995-96, the interest income is included in the peak amount declared in the hands of AOP an....