TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (10) TMI 120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers. During the course of search and seizure proceedings conducted on 19th Sept., 1986, various books of accounts along with cash, gold ornaments, silver, National Saving Certificates, fixed deposits, etc. were found. The statements of the partners were recorded in the course of search and all the partners had admitted that the valuables seized belonged to themselves and their family members and they were to make appropriate disclosure in respect of unexplained valuables. On the basis of their statements the firm declared additional income of Rs. 21.04 lakhs for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1987-88 on 31st Sept., 1986. The assessee filed revised returns for the assessment years already completed and fresh returns for the assessment years where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mnesty Scheme and the share income has been included in the assessment of the partners. Therefore, the income representing the seized assets and the unaccounted expenditure and investment substantive assessments were made in the hands of the firm and no separate addition was made in the assessment of the partners. 4. The first ground of appeal for all the years is against the estimated addition in respect of business income over and above what had been already declared in the returns of the income in different assessment years. The position is as under: Asst. yr Income declared Addition made 1986-87 72,000 28,000 1984-85 73,398 36,602 1983-84 69,009 40,991 1982-83 71,514 30,485 1981-82 73,635 36,365 1980-81 78,500 21....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000 84,000 12,000 1981-82 52,800 10,200 63,000 75,000 12,000 1980-81 37,000 20,000 57,000 69,000 12,000 1979-80 36,039 14,961 51,000 61,000 10,000 1978-79 37,559 7,441 45,000 55,000 10,000 When the matter was taken to the CIT(A) he held that the withdrawals in different years is quite reasonable and therefore he deleted all the additions. 6. The AO had estimated interest income on fixed deposits and receipts in different years. According to the AO the assessee has failed to give correct details. However, the CIT(A) found that total of such deposits aggregated to Rs. 3,19,067 and all the credits in various bank accounts were taken into consideration. He, therefore deleted the addition. 7. The assessee had show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere initiated. When the matter was taken to the CIT(A) he relied upon the circular of the CBDT No. 451, dt. 17th Feb., 1986. He held that no assets were found or detected in the course of search in the case of this assessee and the seized books of accounts did not indicate any positive concealment of income or investment in various assets. He found that the assets were found and seized in the residential premises of the partners in the course of search independently. The assets stood in the name of the individual partners and their family members. The assets were created on different dates and the source of money was not attributable in any way to the business of the assessee-firm. Such attribution was admitted by the assessee in its disclo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal Representative submitted that the other grounds are only on account of estimation of income and the estimation made by the AO was reasonable. He however, very vehemently argued against the order of the CIT(A) with regard to the application of Amnesty Scheme. The assessee's counsel, however, strongly relied on the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that in view of the circular of the Board dt. 17th Feb., 1986, the full benefit of the Amnesty Scheme has rightly been allowed by the CIT(A). He also submitted that the additions deleted by the CIT(A) are justified inasmuch as the deletions have been made on the ground that the assessee had made a package deal with the Department. We are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) is fully just....