TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., all the matters were heard together and we dispose of the same by this common order. 4. All the matters were directed to be taken up for out of turn hearing vide order dt. 7th Oct., 2002 passed in Stay Petition Nos. 19 and 20/All/2002 in the case of both the assessees. The stay was granted subject to certain conditions for a period of six months and next date of hearing was fixed for final disposal of the appeal on 25th Nov., 2002. The aforesaid stay against the outstanding demand was extended vide order dt. 23rd Oct., 2003 for a further period of six months on the same terms and conditions as directed in Stay Petitions Nos. 10 and 11/All/2003. In pursuance of the directions in stay petitions, all the matters were taken up for out of turn hearing. 5. Since the facts are identical in all the matters and Revenue and both the assessees have taken common grounds of appeal in their respective appeals/cross-objections, therefore, for the sake of brevity, we reproduce the grounds of appeal taken in the case of the assessee M/s Fertilisers Traders. 6. ITA Nos. 762 and 763/All/1999 are directed on the following grounds, which are taken from ITA No. 762/All/1999, which are as under: "1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed under s. 158BC and 154 of the IT Act, 1961 on the following grounds and the grounds of appeal are reproduced as taken in the case of M/s Fertilisers Traders: "1. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of the order dt. 4th Oct., 2000 that had been passed earlier by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle, Gorakhpur under s. 154 r/w s. 158BC, after holding that- "....The AO did not only have the right, but in fact, it was his duty to correct any arithmetical mistake, that had occurred while working out of the peak in the original assessment order...." 2. Because the overall working of peak of the balances in various accounts, which formed the basis of computing the undisclosed income of the appellant in the block assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 1999, having already been the subject-matter of appeal (against the said block assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 1999) in terms of the appellate order dt. 18th May, 1999, no order of rectification under s. 154 could have been legally passed by the AO and view to the contrary as has been taken by the learned first appellate authority is wholly erroneous. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) after having himself no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 passed in appeal numbers ITA 164 & 165/All/2001; (i) in their order dt. 15th Jan., 2002 (copy of which was duly placed before the learned first appellate authority) the Hon'ble Bench had specifically held that- "13. In view of above facts and circumstances and various decisions we are of the opinion that the orders of assessment for block period dt. 24th Feb., 1999 in case of both the appellant stood merged in the common order of the CIT(A) passed on 18th May, 1999 and therefore, no original order was in existence even on 16th April, 2000 the date of issue of notice under s. 263 of the Act; what to say of existence of original orders of assessment on 28th March, 2001 when the CIT passed the orders under s. 263 of the Act. That being the case the orders of the CIT passed under s. 263 of the Act on 28th March, 2001 were absolutely illegal and void ab initio." and accordingly the appellate order (which is the subject-matter of present appeal) is wholly vitiated. 5. Because wholly without prejudice to the contention raised in the foregoing grounds there was no understatement of the working of peak in the block assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 1999, which could be rectified under s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... During the course of search and seizure operation at the business premises of the assessee, various unexplained and incriminating documents and papers were found. On the basis of seized documents, notice under s. 158BC(a) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued requiring the assessee to prepare a true and correct return of income including the undisclosed income in respect of which they are assessable for the block period on the prescribed form No. 2B and also to deliver the return within 45 days from the receipt of the notice. The said notice was served on the assessee and the assessee in compliance with the above notice filed its return of income in the prescribed form on 15th April, 1998 in the status of firm declaring total income including the undisclosed income computed in accordance with the provisions of s. 158BB of the IT Act, 1961 in a sum of Rs. 1,23,57,500 (Rs. 78,09,940 + Rs. 47,560). The AO issued notice under s. 142 of the IT Act asking for the compliance along with the detailed queries. M/s Fertiliser Traders was having its partners as Vinod Saraf and Atul Saraf. M/s Saraf Trading Company was having partners, namely, Smt. Usha Devi Saraf, Smt. Prakashi Devi Saraf, Smt. Mak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the cases they asserted that they are persons with small capital and not able to pay full amount of bill in one go. The AO further observed that these persons take fertilisers on credit and make payments on instalment basis and as such in no circumstances they have left credit balances as they themselves are doing business on credit. The AO further observed that they withdrew from their cash credit limit and made payment of their bills. The AO further observed that they all asserted that they never made advances for future supply and that they asserted that they themselves have taken stock on credit, therefore, there is no question of further receiving of any cash from assessee's Group. According to the AO this shows that huge amount of cash debit in their accounts is not correct and in fact entries were made by the assessee himself out of assessee's unaccounted funds. The statement of Vinod Saraf was recorded under s. 131 of the IT Act, 1961 on 3rd June, 1997 and he was asked that there are various examples in the computer printsout which showed that the assessee introduced its cash in parties' accounts, which the parties have refused in their statements and said that these are n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dingly the undisclosed income was shown by both the assessees as under: Name of assessee Percentage Undisclosed income as shown in the return of income M/s Fertiliser Traders 36.8% Rs. 45,47,560 M/s Saraf Trading Co. 63.2% 78,09,940 Total: Rs. 1,23,57,500 13. Before proceeding further on the findings of the AO and the CIT(A), it would be necessary to mention some of the relevant paragraphs of the show cause notice issued by the AO raising queries on various points and reply filed by both the assessees. The AO raised the query vide letter dt. 13th July, 1998 alongwith notice under s. 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961, copy of which is filed in 1st paper book and the relevant paragraphs are on pp. 314 to 320: "Cash Credits The scrutiny of your books of accounts and other details obtained in this regard reveals that two separate sets of ledger accounts have been maintained out of which one ledger has been prepared and maintained manually and other ledger has been drawn through computer printout. These ledgers have been verified and examined deeply. This exercise made suggestion that both are not bearing identical entries as required according to the norms of accountancy but are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at her shop and denies any advance in this regard. (d) Achchey Lal Khad Bhandar, Gulheria Shri Achchey Lal Gupta proprietor of the concern submitted that the entries appearing at p. 115 in the ledger of 1996-97 amounting to Rs. 80,000 are not correct. He further added that the cash credit account No. 293 held at Gorakhpur Chhetriya Gramin Bank, Gulheria Branch bears below the above amount, as such the question of payment of this amount does not arise. In reply to the query he also pleaded that he is a trader of small trading limits and that the huge payments referred to above are beyond his financial approach. Thus the cash payment appearing in his ledger folio has been devised. (e) Madhesia Khad Bhandar, Gulheria Similarly Shri Ram Asrey Gupta the proprietor of the concern was also interrogated particularly with reference to the ledger panna 101 of 1995-96 and he was required to substantiate the ledger entries and balances. In reply he added that he has never deposited Rs. 1,01,000, Rs. 90,200 and Rs. 93,000 and claimed that these entries are wrong because he is not financially capable of paying so much advance. For evidence he also added that his cash credit limit as per ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pointed out and to substantiate the entries appearing in the ledger referred to above. Your reply should bear independent evidence, which may prove the submissions. Please note that the analysis of the above facts and other facts bearing the facts other than the identical characteristics of the account has established the existence of your planned device of introducing your own money through undisclosed means. It also leads to suggest that the undisclosed money kept out of the flow of accounts had to be brought in the streamline of accounts and for this a plan was devised and designed. Under this plan, the unaccounted money was received by way of sales and the same was ledgerised on the ledger under the several ledger accounts, which has been found incorrect on verification and investigation made. In this regard you are once again required to furnish your reply on each account discussed above. Please note every point raised in the reply should be supported with documentary evidences therefor. It is also important to note that all relevant papers, documents have been made available in accordance with your need and requirement. Thus your reply should be based on the documents and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be treated as introduction of your own money earned through undisclosed means. (b) In several accounts of manual ledger the respective entries are shown as cash debit entry contrary to it, the same entry of cash credit has been shown as cash but at credit side of the book. Please explain the difference with support of your accounts drawn manually and computer ledger. (c) Please explain the missing entries of computer printout manual ledger. The reply should be based upon the entries appearing in the accounts as referred to above. (d) It has also been gathered from the scrutiny of computer printout that the accounts of Saraf Trading Company and Fertiliser Traders have been mixed. You have claimed the firms are enjoying separate units in the eyes of law. But as per the provisions of law and contents of partnership deed you are liable to maintain separate accounts and not mixed. In view of the above point, you are required to explain the reasons of mixing these accounts. Apart from the above if both the accounts are drawn in a mixed system the only possible inference could be drawn and that would be single unit account. Under these circumstances the claim of separate units fails on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em No. (3) on pp. (3) to (7) of your notice much has been said about alleged unexplained cash-credits. In this regard our pointed reply is as under: (1) You may provide and confront copies of statements of 8 persons mentioned on page No. (4) of your notice, in case you want to draw any inference based on statement of these persons recorded by you/Asstt. Director of IT (Inv.) or you want us to explain the contents under each sub-item (a to h) of page No. 4. (2) A peak of all alleged unexplained cash credit may be drawn in case you are convinced that the credits in the customers' accounts are not creditworthy as alleged in your notice. (3) Since computer printouts are patently incorrect and have been arbitrarily taken to the entire exclusion of the assessee or his staff, therefore, the assessee is not answerable for the mistakes in computer printouts. We also owe no explanation for the mixed entries of different firms taken together by the Asstt. Director of IT (Inv.) for whatever reasons. You will kindly appreciate that the opening and closing balances not appearing in the computer printouts which is merely a programming mistake. Similarly there are certain other patent mistakes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise reconciliation of each account along with written explanation and supporting evidences thereof. Your reply should also bear the; (i) the respective evidences in support of each entry shown in the annexed list. (ii) The chart of verification of each entry showing the account-based explanation. (iii) evidence in respect of claims, if any made, the account being related to your trading. Please note that your reply should be data based reply which may substantiate your claim." 17. Both the assessees filed their common reply dt. 14th Sept., 1998 before the AO, copy of which is filed in paper book-II from pp. 28 to 29: "From: Fertiliser Traders, Gandhi Nagar, Gorakhpur. Date: 14th Sept., 1998 To, The Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Gorakhpur. Sir, Re: Fertiliser Traders-Block assessment proceedings With reference to your notice dt. 31st Aug., 1998, we wish to explain as under: 1. From perusal of the details of alleged unexplained cash credits supplied by you, it is noted that: (a) In many accounts first there is cash payment and thereafter there is a deposit. Therefore, if cash transactions are to be disbelieved (presuming, without admitting) then both debit and credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u is unjustified, insupportable in law and on facts and in any case unsustainable. 3. The assessee has filed a detailed computation chart with explanatory notes in support of its returned income. The computation chart read with notes thereon are self-explanatory. However, in case any specific information is required, the same may be submitted for due compliance. 4. That the unexplained income for the entire block period was first determined as a whole. Thereafter the same has been bifurcated in the ratio of sales amongst two firms as explained in the computation of income itself. In case you have any other acceptable mode of bifurcation of total income between the two firms, which according to you would be more scientific, reasonable and appropriate then the same may be confronted to us. Thereafter, if necessary, we will make our detailed explanation thereon. 5. From perusal of your notice and the accountwise details of alleged unexplained credits following legal lacunas are noted: (a) Your have taken only entire credit of the whole year of the alleged cash-credit accounts as unexplained instead of making a datewise peak of all the accounts. (b) The debits prior to the credits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 31st March, 1996 and on the date of search at Rs. 1,39,87,788, 1,79,57,411 and Rs. 1,77,48,156 respectively. The highest peak amount is 1,79,57,411 as on 31st March, 1996. Please explain why these figures should not be taken as correct figures as representing undisclosed income of M/s Fertiliser Traders and Saraf Trading Company. Date fixed for the purpose is on 25th Jan., 1999. Sd. Girdhari Lal Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Gorakhpur." 19. The common reply of both the assessees dt. 25th Jan., 1999 was filed before the AO. The relevant portion of the reply appears in the paper book-II p. 71 and is reproduced below: Dt. 25th Jan., 1999 "To The Asstt. CIT, Central Circle, Gorakhpur. Reg.: M/s Fertiliser Traders and Saraf Trading Company block assessment proceedings for the block period ended on 12th Feb., 1997, explanation regarding. Dear Sir, With reference to your notice dt. 20th Jan., 1999, we wish to explain various issues inquired in the said notice, as under: (a) That peak advised in your notice cannot be taken as correct because it suffers from various discrepancies pointed out earlier vide various replies filed from time to time." The AO after considering the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7,788 is taken as income for the asst. yr. 1995-96. The peak worked out on 31st March, 1996 is Rs. 1,79,57,411. The increase from 31st March, 1995 (Rs. 1,79,57,411 - 1,39,87,788) comes to Rs. 39,69,623. This will be treated as income for asst. yr. 1996-97. The peak worked out on 13th Feb., 1997 comes to Rs. 1,77,48,156 which is lower than peak on 31st March, 1996. Hence no part of it is taken as addition to the income for asst. yr. 1997-98. 11. The computer printout is for transactions relating to both concerns M/s Fertiliser Traders and M/s Saraf Trading taken together. There is no basis for bifurcating this into two concerns. Therefore, the assessee has taken the basis of ratio of disclosed turnover of STC and FT in ratio 63.2 per cent and 36.8 per cent. The same basis is being taken here. The calculation will be as under: Asst. yr. Total income STC 63.2 % FT 36.8 % Rs. Rs. Rs. 1995-96 1,39,87,788 88,40,282 51,47,505 1996-97 39,69,623 25,08,801 14,60,821 1997-98 Nil Nil Nil 1,39,49,083 66,08,326" 20. The assessee claimed bad debt of Rs. 21,96,984 and asked for deduction out of the undisclosed income but the claim of the assessee w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."4. First ground of appeal in both the cases relate to addition made on the basis of a consolidated peak of Rs. 1.79 crores prepared by the AO. The working of the peak was confronted to both the appellant firms in the course of assessment proceedings. The appellant firms vide their written replies dt. 25th Jan., 1999 filed objections on the working of peak. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the peak of Rs. 1.79 crores prepared by the Department was not correct for the following reasons: (a) In large number of accounts included in the working of the peak, there was no deposit of cash in the regular books of accounts corresponding to cash transaction recorded in the computer printouts of the ledgers. If we connect the logic of peak adopted by the AO given on p. 4 in paragraph 4(b) "it is seen that there are heavy accounts in cash entries appearing as credit in the books of the assessee group i.e. in the regular books of account" then, it will be observed that there are no deposits which could be included in the working of the peak on the basis of these accounts. By a fair estimate, at least 30-35 lakhs, are unnecessarily included in peak on the basis of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im for inclusion in the peak. Further since the ledgers (regular books) and computer printouts were seized and available with AO, he could have verified that which accounts are in the nature of cash credits and which are of different nature. Regarding the second objection also the learned counsel contended that since the peak of Rs. 1.79 crores represent debit balance as on 31st March, 1996, therefore, any unnecessary debit balance taken into accounts will have the effect of increasing the debit peak. Since in at least 23 accounts specifically pointed out before me, neither there is any introduction of cash in the regular books nor there is any justification in adding these separately over and above the peak because time to time balance in various accounts keep changing i.e. the debit balance in one account may decrease by increase in other account or vice versa. As the maximum debit balance on a particular date is considered as the peak amount, therefore, the objection of assessee is not sustainable. The counsel for the appellants further submitted that if objections on the working of the peak are properly considered and appreciated then it will be seen that practically there is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prepared a peak of transaction appearing in the computer printouts. On the premises that the appellants were introducing their own money in the name of several customers, the modus operandi adopted by the appellants for introduction of their own money is briefly discussed here. The appellants have maintained two different sets of accounts (1) meant for disclosure to the IT Department hereinafter referred to as 'regular books' and their own control ledger on computer, hereinafter hereafter referred to as computer prints or parallel books. The appellant used to deposit cash amounts in regular books in the name (s) of customers and corresponding entry for the same amount was passed in parallel books by debit to same party's account. Thus in regular books appellant's own money was introduced as an advance received from customers and in parallel books of account, same amount was debited in the name of same party as advance given to them. Thus, on one hand, the appellant enjoyed cash credits by utilising their own unaccounted money and on the other hand for control and recovery purposes, parallel set of accounts represented amounts receivable from the various customers for fake credit gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions in both the Departmental appeals challenging the working of the peak and the part addition sustained by the CIT(A). In addition to this, other legal grounds are also taken which have also been reproduced above in this order. 27. However, the things would not end here. We may mention that after passing of the assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 1999 and the order of the CIT(A) dt. 18th May, 1999, the AO issued show cause letter dt. 17th July, 2000 under s. 154 of the IT Act for enhancing the peak as there were some mistakes in calculation of the peak amount of unexplained cash credits. 28. In order to consider all the appeals connected with the issue, it would be appropriate that in addition to the above facts, the following dates and events relating to filing of the appeals by both the parties be mentioned: Dates Events 22-3-2000 23-2-2001 Notice under s. 263 was issued by the CIT(Central), Kanpur in the case of both the assessees on the ground that block assessment orders dt. 24th Feb., 1999 were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 17-7-2000 Proceedings under s. 154 initiated by AO in relation to the block assessment orders passed in the case of both t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned Departmental Representative and the learned counsel for the assessee at length. The learned counsel for the assessee filed two separate paper books on quantum as well as on proceedings under s. 154 of the IT Act. The details of the same, relevant for the purpose of disposal of the appeal would be mentioned at the appropriate stage. The learned Departmental Representative also filed the working of the undisclosed income by the AO in all the three years. The learned Departmental Representative argued that documents were seized and the assessee was supplied copy of the same upon which the assessee has filed return of income in block period in prescribed form for both the assessees showing the undisclosed income in a sum of Rs. 1.23 crores. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the finding of the AO and submitted that during the search data computer floppies were seized in which the details of business were found in the form of ledger. It disclosed unaccounted or undisclosed transactions which were not produced before the AO in the regular return. According to the learned Departmental Representative, there was some nexus between the entries of debit and credit si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mputer and manual account; debit entries in computer shown as credit in manual accounts. (ii) Undisclosed entries shown as debit entries in computer accounts were not shown in manual accounts; (iii) entries are found in regular accounts but not shown in computer accounts, therefore, those entries were not considered as undisclosed income by the AO. According to the learned Departmental Representative, difference in manual account and computer accounts on the basis of the peak was taken as undisclosed income. The learned Departmental Representative further argued that the assessee claimed that in 23 parties accounts there are only debit balances as there are no credit entries in manual books of accounts. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 31,89,230. According to the learned Departmental Representative, this plea was raised for the first time before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred documents to the AO for his comments and the AO filed reply and requested to disallow additional evidence. The learned Departmental Representative further argued that the AO replied that even if there are no credit entries in the books of assessee, it would be undisclosed inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s stock was found for which no proper explanation was given before the AO. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition under this head. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observation of the AO mentioned in the assessment order. 30. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee argued that the regular assessment is different from block assessment. According to him, the computer floppies and discs and books of accounts were seized and nothing was available with the assessee. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, the computer printouts were in the form of ledger of the parties in computer. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, all the copies were not supplied by the Department and, therefore, the assessee was not negligent in not furnishing all the details before the AO. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the peak was taken for the asst. yr. 1996-97 but for the last year, return of income was filed along with the audit report, so no addition could be made in the asst. yrs. 1994-95 and 1995-96. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the details came out in the survey cannot be used in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I) showing computation of undisclosed income on the basis of peak as worked out by the AO is not complete compilation of search as details were in more than 2500 accounts and the AO picked only a few to make the addition and, therefore, there was no rational basis shown by the AO to work out the peak of undisclosed income. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, the chart furnished in affidavit and Annex.-I (A.R.-I) shows the working of the peak on the basis of entire seized material. Therefore, the working of the AO was incorrect. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the order of Tribunal, Lucknow Bench in the case of Deepak Handa. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, all the relevant information with regard to ledger accounts appearing in the computer printouts was available with the AO and as such all the data were available with the Department and, therefore, the undisclosed income should be computed on the basis of entire documents seized. The learned counsel for the assessee further argued that the information with regard to 23 parties. The assessee has invited attention of the CIT(A) to the said information. According to the learned counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d even at the appellate stage. The learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the reply filed before the CIT(A), copy of which is filed in the paper book-II. He has referred to pp. 138 and 139 of the paper book and argued that even on calculation of the peak a minus figure of Rs. 2,88,09,045 would come out. Therefore, the computation by the AO was erroneous. The learned counsel for the assessee referred to paper book I at p. 205 and argued that it was submitted before the AO that all the printouts were not taken into consideration. The learned counsel for the assessee has also taken us through paper book I at pp. 207 and 215 and argued that all the details of 23 parties were submitted before the authorities below. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon circular No. 14 dt. 11th April, 1955, copy of which has also been filed. The learned counsel for the assessee, on this basis argued that the officers of the IT Department should advise the assessee when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming relief. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Tribunal in the matter of Dy. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tated that the case of the assessee is covered by order of Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in the case of Dr. R.M.L. Mehratra vs. Asstt. CIT (1999) 64 TTJ (All) 259 : (1999) 68 ITD 288 (All), wherein this point was decided against the assessee. 35. On the remaining grounds of cross-objections, the learned counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee filed its working of the peak on the basis of the same seized material in A.R.-I (affidavit of Vinod Saraf, Annex.-I). According to him, all those details were taken and prepared on the basis of details of computer printouts, copy of which was given to learned Departmental Representative and the same material was available with the Department, therefore, the entire method of working of the peak by the Department was defective as entire seized material was not considered. The learned counsel for the assessee further argued that computation of undisclosed income should have been made strictly in accordance with the charging provision as contained in s. 158BC of the IT Act. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, since all the ledger accounts and entries appearing therein are not taken into account, the computation of undisclose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counts in ledger were taken into consideration while calculating the peak). According to the learned Departmental Representative, the assessee did not claim the peak position as is claimed in the affidavit of Vinod Saraf. According to the learned Departmental Representative, this point is taken for the first time before the Tribunal and no opportunity is given to the AO to go through the correctness of the same. The learned Departmental Representative then argued that (A.R.-I) affidavit of Vinod Saraf and summary of seized documents are additional evidence in nature and hence the same may be ignored. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon- (i) Parakh Foods Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1998) 64 ITD 396 (Pune) (ii) CIT vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma (2002) 177 CTR (Raj) 539 : (2003) 259 ITR 240 (Raj) (iii) CIT vs. Elegant Homes (P) Ltd. (2002) 177 CTR (Raj) 261 : (2003) 259 ITR 232 (Raj) (iv) CIT vs. N.T.A. Kareem (2001) 167 CTR (Ker) 280 (v) Hukum Chand Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC) (vi) India Steel & Wire Products Ltd. vs. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 740 (Cal) (vii) S.N. Swarnammal vs. CED (1973) 88 ITR 366 (Mad) (viii) Manji Dana vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 582 (SC) (ix) Raj Kumar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k was properly considered by the learned AO. The learned counsel for the assessee filed details of the case laws relied upon in support of his contention. 39. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the material available on record more carefully. Before taking into consideration various addition on the issues, it would be appropriate to consider the details submitted in the affidavit of Vinod Saraf (marked AR-I) and Annex.-I attached with this affidavit summarising all the peak and debits and credits, which was prepared by the assessee on the basis of the seized material and the details submitted by the learned Departmental Representative (marked D.R.-I), which was prepared by the AO for the purpose of computation of undisclosed income. 40. The learned counsel for the assessee has referred to datewise summary (in A.R.-I, Annex.-I) during the course of hearing and has taken us to various dates, copy of which was also supplied to the learned Departmental Representative but no counter-affidavit has been filed. We, therefore, think it proper to decide the issue as to whether the statement giving datewise summary of the balances 'A.R.-I', Annex.-I represents ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re duly supplied by the assessee to the learned Departmental Representative before commencement of the hearing of the appeals. Therefore, such material was available with the Department, but the same was not controverted by any reply of the AO or of the learned Departmental Representative. We may also mention that the same submissions were also made before the CIT(A) in the submissions dt. 9th Aug., 2001 in the appeal proceedings against the order passed under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 and the same details which are mentioned as date-wise summaries of balances of ledgers and as mentioned in A.R.-I, Annex.-I were also available before the CIT(A) in those proceedings. The relevant submission of the assessee are reproduced for the sake of convenience which is mentioned in para 5 of submissions dt. 9th Aug., 2001 in paper book-II p. 222. "5. The appellants also beg to submit that random selection of accounts, for the purpose of working out 'peak' which formed part of the overall computation of undisclosed income, could not have been resorted to in view of the definition of the term of undisclosed income which for the sake of ready reference is reproduced hereunder: '158B(b). "Undisc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit." Sec. 255(6) of the IT Act, 1961 is reproduced below for the sake of convenience: "Sec. 255(6):-The Tribunal shall, for the purpose of discharging its functions, have all the powers which are vested in the IT authorities referred to in s. 131, and any proceeding before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of ss. 193 and 228 and for the purpose of s. 196 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of s. 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)." Therefore, the combined reading and plain interpretation of all these provisions of the IT Act above, would emerge that the Tribunal is vested with powers of a Civil Court under Civil Procedure Code when trying a suit as stated above and the proceedings before it are judicial in nature. Sec. 254 gives wide powers on the Tribunal to "pass such order thereon as it thinks fit" but the only fetter put by the legislature upon the Tribunal is to give opportunity of hearing to both the parties. These powers are to be exercised i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at substantial justice. 45. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Esthuri Aswathiah vs. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 478 (SC) has held "the function of the Tribunal in hearing an appeal is purely judicial. It is under a duty to decide all questions of fact and law raised in the appeal before it; for that purpose it must consider whether on the materials relied upon by the assessee his plea is made out. Conclusive proof of the claim is not predicated; the Tribunal may act upon probabilities, and presumptions may supply gaps in the evidence which may not, on account of delay or the nature of the transactions or for other reasons, be supplied from independent sources. But the Tribunal cannot make arbitrary decisions, it cannot found its judgments on conjectures, surmises or speculation. Between the claims of the public Revenue and of the taxpayers, the Tribunal must maintain a judicial balance." 46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. vs. CIT held- "The powers of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals are expressed in s. 33(4) of the IT Act in the widest possible terms. The word "thereon' in s. 33(4) restricts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the subject-matter of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal is preferred to dispose of the whole or any part of the matter afresh, unless forbidden from doing so by statue." 48. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the matter of Raja Baldeodas Birla Santatikosh vs. CWT (1991) 189 ITR 613 (Cal) held- "In an appeal, it is open to the Tribunal to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower authorities and substitute it by its own discretion. It is also open to the Tribunal to direct the authority to exercise its discretion where failure of such authority to exercise such discretion may result in an improper assessment." 49. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. held- "Under s. 33(4) the Tribunal is competent to pass such orders on appeal "as it thinks fit". There is nothing in the IT Act which restricts the Tribunal to the determination of questions raised before the Departmental authorities. All questions, whether of law or of facts, which relate to the assessment of the assessee may be raised before the Tribunal. If for reasons recorded by the Departmental authorities in respect of a contention raised by the assessee, grant of relief to him on another ground is justified, it woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing heard on that ground. There cannot be any estoppel against law. It is permissible on the part of the Tribunal to entertain a ground beyond those incorporated in the memorandum of appeal though the party urging the said ground had neither appealed before nor had filed a cross-objection in the appeal filed by the other party. However, if the assessee or the Department, without filing any appeal or a cross-objection seeks to urge a ground other than the grounds incorporated in the memorandum of appeal filed by the other side, the evidentiary fact in support of the new ground must be available on record." The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court further held- "That the Tribunal erred in not considering the contentions of the assessee that the warehouse charges were covered by sub-cl. (iv) of s. 35B(1)(b) of the Act, only on the ground that the assessee has not filed any appeal or the cross-objection." 52. All the above referred authorities are clearly applicable to the case of the assessee. The point before us had been the computation of undisclosed income on the basis of peak worked out from the seized material. The AO has prepared compilation of the peak, summary of which is filed in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of CIT vs. N.T.A. Kareem in which it was held that the word "thereon" restricts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the subject-matter of appeal and the subject-matter of the appeal is constituted by the original grounds of appeal and such additional grounds as may be raised by leave of the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. vs. CIT and argued that the word "thereon" restricts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the subject-matter. We have already mentioned this decision above in which the Department, being the respondent, was allowed to raise contention which was not raised earlier. The learned Departmental Representative also relied upon decision of Calcutta High Court in the matter of Indian Steel & Wire Products Ltd. vs. CIT in which additional ground was raised being alternate ground and Hon'ble High Court held that the Tribunal very correctly declined to admit the alternate ground. However, this is not so in the matter before us. The learned Departmental Representative further relied on the decision of Madras High Court in the matter of S.N. Swaranammal vs. CED in whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s grounds of appeal raised in the appeals of the Department, assessee and cross-objections of the assessee. 55. Before proceeding further to decide this issue of the computation of the undisclosed income and the basis of the peak, it would be relevant to take other issues for the purpose of the disposal of the Departmental appeals. Bad Debts 56. On the issue of bad debts amounting to Rs. 21,96,984, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee with which the Revenue is aggrieved. We do not agree with the argument of the learned Departmental Representative that the claim for bad debts is not admissible in block assessments. Sec. 158BB(1) clearly lays down that the undisclosed income of the block period shall be aggregate of total income of the previous year falling within the block period computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sec. 158BH provides "save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, all other provisions of the Act shall apply to assessment made under this Chapter." From the above analysis, it follows that the claim of bad debts is admissible in principle in block assessment made under Chapter XXIV-B. However, this analysis alone would not go to resolve the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef to the assessee. However, the counsel for the assessee supported the finding of the CIT(A). 59. We have considered the submissions in detail which are incorporated above. It is admitted fact that the discrepancies in the stock were detected as a result of survey under s. 133A of the Act. Chapter XIV-B is applicable only to the persons subject to search and computation of undisclosed income and it has to be necessarily based on material found during the course of search under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961. The scope of survey under s. 133A was entirely different and the information gathered during the course of survey cannot be made the basis of addition in block assessment. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Lucknow Bench of Tribunal in the case of Dr. Ratan Kumar Singh vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No. 140 of 1997, dt. 31st May, 2003, copy of which has been filed. In that case, there was a search under s. 132(1) at the residential premises of the assessee from where no incriminating documents were found. Search was also carried out at the business premises of the assessee and during the course of survey, certain records were found and on that basis additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....han the figures which got squared out by corresponding entries in the manual set of accounts. 62. We are constrained to mention that at no stage the authorities gave a serious consideration to the points submitted by the assessee on the issue. As may be seen from the submissions of the assessee at various stages, the case of the assessee had been- (i) That the block assessment order is separate and distinct from regular assessment order; (ii) The computation of undisclosed income should be made strictly on the basis of computer printouts without any reference to the manual set of accounts referred to, regular books which had formed the basis of filing of the returns in normal course of asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97 and also for the asst. yr. 1997-98. The extension of the above plea was that the accounts as appearing in the computer printouts should be considered for the purposes of working out of the peak relevant for computation of undisclosed income and the working of the peak on the basis of pick and choose of the accounts should be avoided. (iii) Lastly during the course of rectification proceedings under s. 154 both the assessees itself carried out the requisite exercise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion is yet supplied by the learned Departmental Representative. However, the assessee has submitted a chart according to which, the number of accounts as per original printouts used in all the three years had been 2614 and the number of accounts selected by the AO during the course of block assessment were 814 (in financial year 1994-95), 667 (in financial year 1995-96) and 688 (in financial year 1996-97) and, thus, only 2169 accounts were used by the AO while working out the peak of the balances. Paper book-II/213 is reply of AO in which he has admitted before CIT(A) that peak was taken on selection of ledger accounts. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be considered that the entire seized material was used by the AO while working out the peak of the balances. It is needless to mention that ledger accounts represent entries recorded in cash book. Therefore, without recording all entries in cash book date-wise in chronological order, no proper ledger accounts would be made out. All entries in cash book are, therefore, most relevant and primary evidence under tax law. If all entries of cash book are not taken into consideration while making ledger accounts, then no p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to the credits appearing in the manual set of accounts on the basis of statements recorded by the ADI wing is wholly academic and for this reason, we do not intend to go further into this aspect of the matter. 66. The summary of peak (marked A.R.-I) has been placed before the authorities below at various stages and the same formed part of the paper book also. Even if the affidavit of Vinod Saraf is ignored at this stage, the fact remains that the Annexure thereto which are summary (Annex.-I) was filed before the CIT(A) during the course of hearing of the appeal against the order under s. 154 and the submissions made before the CIT(Central), Kanpur during the course of proceeding under s. 263 of the IT Act. Both such matters are also connected with the present appeals. In terms of the discussion appearing above, we have already held that these Annexures do not even constitute additional information or additional evidence. It is not disputed that the said summary of the peak (A.R.-I) has been compiled solely on the basis of computer printouts supplied by the Revenue-Department itself. Even during the course of arguments, nothing is pointed out by the learned Departmental Repres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accordance with the provisions of this Act. The Act clearly lays down in terms of ss. 69 and 69A that such money, bullion, jewellery, article or thing and investments etc. source of which remained unexplained may be treated as income of the assessee. In the case of repetitive transactions appearing over a period of year or years, such transactions should be placed chronologically, datewise as the first entry and debit or credit as the case may be, shall provide the source for the subsequent entries. The learned counsel for the assessee during the course of arguments, filed copy of the guidelines available in the Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income-tax Vol. 3, 9th Edn., p. 3547 to support such view. The same extract is reproduced as under: "16. 'Peak credit' theory-One of the commonest defects of an assessee, where a single credit or number of credits appear in the books in the account of any particular person side by side with a number of debits is that they should all be arranged in serial order, that a credit following a debit entry should be treated as referable to the latter to the extent possible and that, not the aggregate but only the "peak" of the credit should be treated as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duced as under: "Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the officers should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the Department for it would inspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the Department. Although, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with the assessee on whom it is imposed by law, officers should- (a) draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other; (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs." 71. The learned counsel for the assessee also referred to the decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Dy. CIT vs. Sanmukhd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the said definition cannot be subjected to tax in the block assessment, even though declared as such by the assessee in the return of income for block period. The procedure laid down in Chapter XIV-B also reveals that the AO has to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner specified in s. 158BB and this exercise is independent of the return filed by the assessee for the block period. At this stage, it is useful to refer to the observations recorded by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Control Touch Electronics (Pune) (P) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT to the effect that, if any income is not taxable by virtue of any provision of the Act, then it cannot be taxed merely because it was offered by the assessee in his return of income and there cannot be any such estoppel against statute. 12. It is observed that a similar issue in the context of regular assessment arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bharat General Insurance Co. Ltd. (1971) 81 ITR 303 (Del), wherein it was held by their Lordships that even if an assessee declares an income in the return, the AO cannot assess it merely on that basis and he has to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee was lower than the returned income, we are of the opinion that the same has to be assessed at such lower amount going by the concept of real income especially when the said working was verified and found to be correct by the AO." 72. Considering the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case, if we give a close look to the block assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 1999 and the summary supplied by the learned Departmental Representative (D.R.-I) which is annexure of the assessment order, the AO himself has applied this theory. The only difference is that he has worked out the peak of the balances accountwise at the end of the year and that too without taking into consideration of all the accounts appearing in the computer printouts. In our considered opinion, the approach of the AO was unjustified in this regard. The correct principle is, as laid down by eminent jurist, Sampath Iyengar in the book referred to above and also ratio laid down in the case of Neemar Ram Badlu Ram that each debit and credit should be arranged chronologically irrespective of the fact that such debit/credit appearing in the accounts and that from each receipt and payment, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r this matter while taking action under s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, considering the above facts and in order to give opportunity to the AO to consider this aspect of the matter, it would be appropriate and reasonable to set aside the findings of the AO and the CIT(A) on the issue and restore the matter to the AO. In view of our above finding, we restore the issue relating to the computation part only of the undisclosed income to the file of the AO with the following directions: (i) Each credit/debit entry appearing in the computer printouts for financial years 1994-95 and 1995-96 and computer printouts for financial year 1996-97 (as segregated by the AO himself at the original stage of computation of undisclosed income) shall be arranged chronologically and date wise. (ii) From the aforesaid figure, the day-to-day cash book should be prepared (as is shown by the assessee) so as to find out the negative cash balance as on different dates. (iii) Thereafter, in order to work out the computation of the undisclosed income, the receipts as well as the payments, as would be appearing in the cash book, shall be arranged date-wise chronologically. (iv) While making such arrangements, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 22nd March, 2000 and 23rd Feb., 2001 as, according to him, the block assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue as the computation of undisclosed income was not properly done by the AO. The CIT (Central), Kanpur ultimately passed the order under s. 263 of the IT Act on 28th March, 2001 setting aside the block assessment order and directing the AO to recompute the undisclosed income as per his directions. The assessee challenged the order under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 dt. 28th March, 2001 before the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal, who vide order dt. 15th Jan., 2002 quashed the order of CIT (Central), Kanpur under s. 263 of the Act. In the meanwhile the AO, also issued notice under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 dt. 17th July, 2000 mainly on the grounds that while scrutinising the calculation of the undisclosed income certain mistakes have been noticed, which are apparent from records, in taking the figure from the computer printouts. The AO prepared the chart of the five parties for making the peak of the cash credit for enhancing the undisclosed income. The said chart is reproduced as under which is taken from the order under s. 154 of the IT Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It was also submitted that the working of the peak stood merged in the appellate order dt. 18th May, 1999 and, therefore, the same could not be varied by the AO. It was also argued that the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal had upheld the claim of the assessee that the order of the AO stood merged with the order of the CIT(A) dt. 18th May, 1999 on the issue of working of peak by quashing the order of the CIT(Central), Kanpur under s. 263 of the Act. It was also submitted that there are certain calculation mistakes made by the AO in working out the revised peak in respect of those five parties and also the peak with respect to party No. 1 and 3, i.e., M/s Asian Fertiliser and M/s Ganesh Fertiliser could not have been included in the first place because there were no credit entries against their names in the regular books of accounts. It was argued that the addition made by the AO should be deleted. The learned CIT(A), after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments of the assessee, passed the following order while dismissing the appeal of the assessee in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned order dt. 14th Aug., 2002. "12. I have considered the submissions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... already been the subject-matter of appeal (against the said block assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 1999) in terms of the appellate order dt. 18th May, 1999, no order of rectification under s. 154 could have been legally passed by the AO and the view to the contrary, as has been taken by the learned first appellate authority, is wholly erroneous. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) after having himself noted in para 12 of the appellate order that- "....The learned CIT(A) vide his order dt. 18th May, 1999 has determined the principle which is to govern the working of the peak...." should have held that the block assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 1999 stood merged with the appellate order dt. 18th May, 1999 and the order dt. 4th Oct., 2000, passed by the AO in relation to the said very block assessment order, was wholly without jurisdiction. 4. Because the learned CIT(A), while holding in principle that the AO was competent (in fact, the AO was obliged to do so) to pass the order; under s. 154 dt. 4th Oct., 2000, in relation to the block assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 1999, has missed to note and failed to consider that- (a) during the course of extensive block assessment proceedings un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed under s. 263 of the Act on 28th March, 2001 were absolutely illegal and void ab initio." And accordingly the appellate order (which is the subject-matter of present appeal is wholly vitiated. 5. Because wholly without prejudice to the contention raised in the foregoing grounds there was no understatement of the working of the peak in the block assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 1999, which could be rectified under s. 154, so as to enhance the computation of undisclosed income (as had been determined originally). 6. Because, on the other hand, the working of peak of the balances as had formed the basis of computation of undisclosed income, suffered from various mistakes, correction of which would have resulted into downward revision of the undisclosed income, and the learned CIT(A) was obliged under the law, in due discharge of his appellate functions, to take specific note of such mistakes and give appropriate directions to the AO. 7. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the ground taken by the appellant on the issue of initiation of proceedings under s. 158BFA(2) was not maintainable. 8. Because the order appealed against is contrary to fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thod of calculation of peak. Copy of the same is filed in the paper book-II at p. 213. The learned counsel for the assessee also referred to reply dt. 16th Jan., 2001, copy of which is filed in the paper book-II on pp. 133 to 139 and argued that even on the basis of working, minus figure of the peak would come out. He has further argued that if negative cash balance is not shown in the books of accounts, then it is undisclosed income. If the same is shown in the books, then there is no undisclosed income. 81. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative argued that the counsel for the assessee has been addressing the conflicting arguments and before the AO, the assessee did not plead merger and sought further deduction but in the order under s. 154(1A), the plea of merger is taken. The learned Departmental Representative further argued that IT authorities can rectify mistake of its own as no other person can rectify it. He has further argued that the law does not curtail the powers of the AO to rectify the mistake as provided under s. 154(1A) of the IT Act, 1961. He has further argued that it was an arithmetical error and therefore the AO could rectify the same. He h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntative further argued that the grounds taken by the AO only should be decided as per decisions cited by him above. 82. The learned counsel in the rejoinder arguments, argued that the Revenue-Department had not challenged the finding of the Tribunal in order dt. 15th Jan., 2002 before the Hon'ble High Court. He has further argued that the findings given in the order of CIT(A) dt. 14th Aug., 2002 describing the principle of working out of the peak is also not challenged before the Tribunal. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal and the CIT(A) have become final and can be read against the Department. The learned counsel for the assessee further argued that all the facts were before the Tribunal, Allahabad Bench to decide the matter earlier for working out the peak, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the authorities below and the block assessment order stood merged in the appellate order of the CIT(A) as held by the Tribunal, Allahabad Bench. He has further argued that the ground no. 3 was taken before the Tribunal and on this specific point the Tribunal has given finding. He has further argued that the Tribunal, Allahabad Bench consciously considered whole of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h we have restored the issue of computation of undisclosed income to the file of the AO with certain directions as to how to compute the undisclosed income. The matters in issue before us in these appeals are also same with regard to the computation of the undisclosed income and to see if there was any mistake apparent on record or whether the original assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 1999 stood merged with the appellate order of the CIT(A) dt. 18th May, 1999. Since we have already restored the matter in issue to the file of the AO with regard to the computation of undisclosed income on the basis of entire material, therefore, the point on rectification as such would not arise; therefore, we have to quash the order under s. 154 and the impugned order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Therefore, the point in issue with regard to the merger would be academic in nature at this stage. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and settling all the issues, we would like to decide the points raised by learned Representatives of parties. Prior to the issuance of the notice dt. 17th July, 2000 under s. 154, the CIT (Central), Kanpur had initiated the proceedings under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....foresaid view and the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of MP, the un-mistaken and unavoidable conclusion will be that the present cases are fully covered by the ratio of these two decisions of Hon'ble High Court of MP, i.e., after passing of orders under s. 154 in both these cases by the AO on 4th Oct., 2000 the original assessment orders for block period dt. 24th Feb., 1999 had ceased to exist (having merged in the orders of rectification under s. 154) and orders under s. 154 had come into existence. That being the case, there remained no initial orders of assessment for block period in existence so as to be amenable for revision by the CIT under s. 263 of the Act and, since no authority can revise an order which is not in existence, the orders passed by the CIT, Central, Kanpur on 28th March, 2001 revising the original assessment orders for block period dt. 24th Feb., 1999, in the cases of both the appellants before us, were without jurisdiction and hence void ab initio. The orders of the CIT dt. 28th March, 2001 are, therefore, quashed on this account also. 10.1 Without prejudice to our aforesaid findings, if we consider the validity or jurisdiction by the CIT or proceedings und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e under s. 263(1) of the Act, what to say of existence of original orders of assessment on 28th March, 2001 when the CIT passed the order under s. 263 of the Act. That being the case, the orders of the CIT passed under s. 263 of the Act on 28th March, 2001 were absolutely illegal and void ab initio. 14. Presuming but not admitting for the sake of arguments that there were various aspects/angles for considering the issue relating to the computing of the undisclosed income on the basis of concerned accounts then also, we, in view of various decisions referred to in paras 9 and 10 above are of the opinion that it was the issue as a whole and not the aspect which was the subject-matter of the appeal before the CIT(A) and therefore, we have to hold that the assessment orders for block period dt. 24th Feb., 1999 in the case of both the appellants had merged in the order of the CIT(A) passed on 18th May, 1999." 87. We find from the above order that the Tribunal, Allahabad Bench had discussed large number of case laws in the above order. We further find that the Tribunal, Allahabad consciously considered the whole of the issue of determination of the 'peak' by the AO. It is also relevant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act conveys that the subject-matter of appeal in all its aspects which can call for consideration on the dispute raised will always depend upon the nature of the dispute raised before the appellate authority and the answer cannot be found in the abstract. (c) CIT vs. Jodhpur Diesels in which it was held that the power under s. 263 of the CIT shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in appeal. (d) Asstt. CIT vs. Tin Industries (P) Ltd., in which it was held that "in order to attract the provisions of s. 154 of the Act, there must be a mistake and it must be a mistake apparent from the record. (e) CST vs. Vijay In. Udyog, in which it was held on account of mistake of the Tribunal in not clubbing the two appeals, the statutory right to appeal of one party could not be negatived. It is well settled proposition of law that no party should suffer on account of mistake of the Court or the Tribunal. (f) Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd. vs. IAC. In this case, it was held that the CIT was free to initiate action under s. 263 of the IT Act in respect of two different matters. (g) CIT vs. Technico Enterprises....