TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments only strengthened involvement of the assessee in the sale of Neptha on premium. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing to delete the addition of Rs. 4,99,36,28/- made on protective basis on the basis of statement of Shri Naresh Vora, without proper appreciation of the facts. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made as the assessee failed to explain the source of foreign tour expenses, the evidence of foreign tour being found in the course of search. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,83,010/- made on account of household expenses out of undisclosed income as per diary found during the course of survey in assessee's business premises." 2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the record of the case are that on the basis of information available with Investigation Wing of the Department in case of M/s Galaxy Plasto O-Chen Industry Ltd., discrete enquiries were made to identify the party in nature of it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Locker of Smt. Usha M. Thakkar wife of Mayur M. Thakkar. Mayur M. Thakkar admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 81.09 Lakhs and Atul M. Thakkar offered 25 lakhs as their undisclosed income in post search investigation, it was revealed that cash sales were being made by Thakkar Group and part of sale consideration was being rooted in the books of account of RRPL and M/s B. R. Industries by accommodation entries provided by the Vora group, it was further found that BR Industries was a partnership concern of Shri Suresh Kankariya and Nitin Kotecha, who were also shareholder of RRPL and B.R. Industry . B.R. Industry was neither maintaining books of account nor filing return of income, it was also found that most of the goods for which transaction had taken place between RRPL on one side and the concern of Vora group on the other side were allegedly transported by Mehta Bulk Carriers. Consequent upon the AO issued noticed u/s 158BC on 13.12.1999 and asked assessee to file block return covering the period from 01.04.1988 to 21.01.1999. Assessee filed return of income for block period showing undisclosed income of Rs. 12,58,739/-. After filing the return of income, notice u/s 142(1) with d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Director of RRPL and further a number of invoices, transport slip were seized from the premises of Vora family which clearly establish/corroborate the involvement of assessee in Hawala transaction in the sale of Neptha. Ld. AR of the assessee made emphasis that in fact no material, what to talk about the incriminating material was recovered/seized from the possession of assessee. Assessee was not present throughout the proceedings conducted by the Revenue at the Thakkar family. The assessee was living separately from last several years and has no concern either with the sale of Neptha or day to day business of RRPL. During the appellate proceeding, ld. CIT(A) called the remand report wherein the AO had admitted that nothing was seized from the premises of assessee. AO while making the assessment, the similar addition was made against the assessment order of RRPL. Assessee neither purchased nor sold Neptha nor having any link with the transporter whose name was allegedly disclosed by Vora family. Ld. AR of the assessee further argued that RRPL filed appeal before the ITAT Pune, wherein the assessment order made in respect of block period were quashed by ITAT, Pune in ITA No. 479/PN/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en days but not more than forty-five days, as may be specified in the notice a return in the prescribed form 30 and verified in the same manner as a return under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142, setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period : Provided that no notice under section 148 is required to be issued for the purpose of proceeding under this Chapter: Provided further that a person who has furnished a return under this clause shall not be entitled to file a revised return; (b) the Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in section 158BB and the provisions of section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 31[, section 144 and section 145] shall, so far as may be, apply; (c) the Assessing Officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment; [(d) the assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 132B.] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in CIT versus Rajendra Prasad Gupta (2001) 248 ITR 350 (Raj) and further Delhi High Court in CIT versus Ravikant Jain 250 ITR 141(Delhi) wherein it was held that a block assessment should be with reference to the material in possession of the assessing officer, since it is an assessment of undisclosed income, it should be based on the material gathered during the search. The similar view was expressed by Special Bench of this Tribunal in All Cargo (supra). Now we shall discuss with the various Grounds raised by revenue in this appeal. 7. Ground No.1 for our consideration is deletion of addition on account of sale of premium on Neptha amounting to Rs. 12,48,61,834/-. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and also perused the finding of Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) while considering the addition on account of sale of Neptha observed that the addition to the income of assessee on account of sale of Neptha has been made on the basis of statement of Naresh B. Vora, the document impounded from his business premises and some other factor. Here we may appreciate that not a single word has been written specifically what evidence was collected during the course of search, the det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem and sold it in the market. The assessee has totally denied his involvement and argued that no paper were found at the premises of the assessee nor were found during the survey of premises of Naresh Vora. Ld. CIT(A) while considering this ground concluded that the addition cannot be sustained u/s. 158BC in absence of independent, primary evidence found and seized during search operation. The name appearing on the backside of two bills "Sunil Bhai" is not proved and AO has not given any reasoning as to how he arrived at the conclusion that the signature were of the assessee. Thus, we are in agreement with the finding of Ld. CIT(A). This ground of appeal raised by Revenue is also dismissed. 9. Ground No.3 for our consideration is deletion of addition of Rs. 4,99,36,298/- made on protective basis on the statement of Naresh Vora. Ld. DR for revenue argued that the addition was made on protective basis on the statement of Naresh Vora as assessee was working on behalf of several consent of Ahmadabad and Baroda like Atlas Petrochemicals, Ankini Petrochemicals and Avni Petrochemicals. The addition was made by AO by appreciating the fact which was corroborative by the statement of Nares....