Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In asst. yr. 1992-93, the AO has made addition of Rs. 24,202 on account of restriction of deduction under s. 80RR. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions in support of the contention that addition on account of debatable issues not based on any material found during the course of search, is not warranted :

(1) Kamkap (India) vs. Dy. CIT (1998) 67 ITD 237 (Pat);

(2) Parakh Foods Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (supra); and (3) Shankar Mahadev & Co. vs. Dy. CIT in IT(SS)A No. 86/Mum/96, order dt. 8th July, 1997, block period 1st April, 1985, to 16th November, 1995.

It was further contended that deduction under s. 80RR has been allowed by the Department in full for asst. yr. 1993-94 vide order dt. 29th December, 1995, and for asst. yr. 1994-95 vide order dt. 31st of March 1997.

14. For asst. yr. 1993-94 similar additions and disallowances have been made and similar contentions have been advanced before us as for asst. yr. 1992-93.

15. In asst. yr. 1995-96 a further disallowance of Rs. 3,000 under s. 80L is contested. It was contended that in regular assessment deduction was allowed to the assessee. Relying upon the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of BDA Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (1998) 61 TTJ (Mumbai) 197 : (1998) 65 ITD 501 (Mumbai) it was contended that the disallowance was uncalled for.

20. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the assessment order in particular and contended that the AO was justified in making the additions on the basis of the material found at the time of search. It was further contended that the AO was justified in presuming concealment of income on the basis of the evidence found on the date of search. It was further contended that the AO was justified in making additions on account of low withdrawals, motor car expenses and also was justified in restricting the deduction under s. 80RR in accordance with law. The learned Departmental Representative pleaded that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sunder Agencies (supra) was not applicable. In this case certain loose papers and hotel bills were found on the date of search which constituted material for purposes of assessment. It was further contended that the AO has relied upon the relevant material in framing the block assessment. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that a slip containing the receipt of commission by the secretary of the assessee had been seized during the course of search and substantial telephone expenses incurred by the assessee had been detected during the course of search. Similarly, incurring of hotel expenses by the assessee was also discovered on the date of search. The AO on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, had made the additions and disallowances. Referring to the addition on account of low withdrawals, the learned Departmental Representative contended that considering the status of the assessee, the withdrawals disclosed by her for personal expenses were inadequate and accordingly the AO was justified in making the addition. Similarly, it was found that the assessee had travelled abroad for which no expenditure had been disclosed. In such circumstances the addition was justified. Referring to the deduction under s. 80RR, the learned Departmental Representative contended that deduction was permissible only with reference to the net income as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Distributors Baroda (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. United General Trust Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 488 (SC). It was also pointed out that the assessee had purchased diamonds in 1993 but the same had not been reflected in the books of account and as such the addition was justified.

34. In our considered view there is no justification for addition of Rs. 1,50,000 in the light of the fact that assessee had disclosed the foreign visits in her original assessment proceedings. The AO accepted the explanation of the assessee that the entire expenditure had been borne by the organisers. There is no material on record to justify the addition of Rs. 1,50,000. The same is accordingly deleted.

35. Next issue that arises for our consideration is deduction under s. 80RR. It was contended before us that the addition made by the AO is based on change of opinion. Once the view has been taken in assessment proceedings the same cannot be changed without there being any material discovered as a result search justifying any change. In our considered view the deduction under s. 80RR is an issue which was considered in the original assessment proceedings. The purpose of block assessment is to assess the undisclosed income discovered on the basis of the search. No material was found in the course of the search in regard to deduction under s. 80RR. Once a view has been taken in regular assessments relating to deduction under s. 80RR it is not permissible for the AO to review his decision without there being any material found during the course of search for coming to a different conclusion. In block assessments mere change of opinion from the view taken in assessment proceedings is not permissible. The addition of Rs. 24,202 made for asst. yr. 1992-93 is thus deleted. Similar additions made for asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 are hereby deleted on the basis of the aforementioned reasoning.