TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hort 'the Act') and ITA No. 6164/M/2012 for the Asst. year 1992-93 against order 9.8.2012 passed by the CIT(A)-40, Mumbai, u/s 154 of the Act. Since both the appeals pertain to the same assessee for the same assessment year, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA 1889/M/2012 for A.Y. 1992-93 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/assessee is the relative of Late Shri. Harshad S. Mehta involved in the securities scam. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises 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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stice either during the course of the assessment proceedings or during the course of the remand proceedings. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not determining the income based on the final books of account thereby confirming the manner of determination of income by the Assessing Officer. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted book results shown by the appellant. 3. 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 while determining the income of the assessee. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 29,343/-on account of unexplained receipts. 10. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,52,252/-on account of profit from sunrise enterprise. 11. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of deduction on account of interest expenditure claimed by the appellant. 12. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in not granting set off of addition on account of source against the application of such source based on telesco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....copies of the order of the tribunal in case of Smt. Pratima Metha and the assessment passed in first round. 5. After considering all the relevant material, we found that the matter should go back to the file of Assessing Officer to pass afresh order. It is seen that for rejecting the books of account, the AO has not given any valid reasons as no specific defect has been pointed out in the books of account, therefore in our view the Assessing Officer should go through the books for determining the income on the basis of books of accounts. The Assessing Officer has to bring on record specific evidence or defect to prove falsity of books of account is no falsity has been proved in the assessment order passed by the AO. Besides this th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. As regards ground No 8 we find no merit in the contention of the assessee that the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the income from dividend and interest at Rs. 6 741033/-. As pointed out by the Ld. CIT (A) the appellant/assessee has produced the books of account before the assessing officer in set-aside proceedings and the AO after going through the same in the light of the contention of the assessee determined the dividend and interest income in question. However, no evidence to rebut the findings of the AO was produced either before the Ld. CIT (A) or before us. Therefore, we have no reason to reverse the finding of the CIT(A). Hence we uphold the findings of ....