2014 (12) TMI 1368

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present tax appeal are that the ice factory premises of the assessee, herein, came to be raided by the Revenue on June 19, 1993 conjointly with the police. Since, at the premises of the assessee certain imported items, such as computer parts, air conditioners, etc., were found, the personnel from the Customs Authorities were called and they seized the aforesaid goods, amounting to total Rs. 31,70,000. Pursuant thereto, the residence of the brother of the assessee, namely, Khimanand Nathabhai Gadhvi, also came to be raided, from where electrical items, i.e., wrist-watches and other electrical goods worth Rs. 39,385 in all were seized. Hence, the concerned Assessing Officer assessed the total ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r 1994-95. He, more particularly, placed reliance on paras 3 to 5 of the aforesaid order, wherein, this court observed as under : "3. The business premises of the appellant was raided by the police on June 19, 1993 and on finding foreign made computer parts and air conditioner the police informed the Customs Department. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee after the raid to be around Rs. 1,39,69,385. The appellant preferred appeal before the first appellate authority who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved by the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by disregard ing the cont....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1,39,75,834. It is the case of the appellant that the Assessing Officer did not accept the figure of undisclosed income as stated in the computation of income furnished by the appellant for the block assessment period and additions/disallowances were made along with charging of inter est under section 158BFA(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. One of the disallowance was pertaining to the claim of deduction of Rs. 40,34,898 on account of gold seized by the customs authorities. The appellant preferred the first appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who confirmed the allowances by rejecting the contentions of the appellant. The appellant preferred second appeal before the Tribunal and raised the contentions and ....