TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act was carried out at the premised of the appellant/assessee on 27/09/1990. During the course of search a large number of documents were seized. A second search and seizure operation was also carried out at the appellant's premises on 28/02/1992. During the course of second search also a large number of documents and valuables were seized. Since the appellant/ assessee had not filed her return of income for the assessment year under consideration within a prescribed time, notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO. In reply to which, the assessee furnished certain details, however, no return of income was filed. Ultimately, assessment was completed u/s 144/143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 24/03/1994 determining the total income at Rs. 4,78,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted book results shown by the appellant. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held that determination of total income of appellant by considering net accretion to various assets as under is wholly erroneous and unsustainable. Particulars Amounts (Rs.) Net accretion to the other assets (-) 3,65,93,656 Net accretion to shareholding 8,29,86,623 Declaration by Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta 24,00,000 Total .... 4,87,92,967 Add: Personal expenses 1,45,647 Total Net accretion to the non-revenue accounts 4,89,38,614 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the correct quantity of purchase and sale of shares should be adopted as per t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duction of other expenses claimed by the appellant in the books of account. 11. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not granting deduction u/s. 48 of the Act while computing the income of the appellant. 12. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the alternate working of the total income as given below, as wholly erroneous and unsustainable. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Revenue receipts as per seized books 25,21,616 Additional income being part of Rs. 100 crores declaration 2,18,62,000 Total ......... 2,43,83,616 Less: Expenses 950 Total income as per revenue accounts 2,43,82,666 13. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence on record and in accordance with the law, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee does not want to press Ground No. 1 of the appeal. Hence, we dismiss ground no.1 of the appeal as not pressed. 7. As regards Ground No. 2 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the identical ground raised in case of Hitesh S. Mehta (supra) was not adjudicated by the ITAT being general in nature, therefore, the same does not need separate adjudication. Accordingly, the same is not adjudicated. 8. The Ld. submitted that the Ground No.3 of the appeal is covered by the order of ITAT in the case of Hitesh S. Mehta (supra). In the said case the Ld. CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., additions contested for ground No. 4,5, & 6 are deleted. Ground No 4 to 6 are accordingly allowed." 11. Since, we have directed the Ld. CIT(A) to compute the taxable income as per books of account of the assessee, we delete the additions contested vide Ground No 4,5 & 6 of this appeal. Ground No. 4, 5 & 6 are accordingly allowed. 12. Ground No. 7 is also identical to the corresponding Ground No. 7 raised in the case of Hitesh S. Mehta (supra). The Co-ordinate bench has allowed the ground No.7 of the appeal holding as under:- " ...... One of the basic principles of natural justice is that no evidence collected behind the back of the assessee could be used against the assessee unless an opportunity is given to the assessee to rebut the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same is also allowed. 15. Ground no. 9 pertains to confirmation of disallowance of deduction on account of interest expenditure claim by the appellant. As urged by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, identical issue has also been dealt by the Co-ordinate bench in case of Shri. Hitesh S. Mehta, ITA No 9158/M/2010 for the assessment year 1996-97 vide order dated 29.11.2013. Following the decision rendered in the said case, the Co-ordinate Bench restored this ground of appeal back to the file of the Assessing Officer to follow the direction of the Tribunal in A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07. Following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench we restore this ground of appeal back to the file of the AO with the direction to follow the direction of the Tribuna....