Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in sustaining an addition of Rs.1,20,33,295/- on account of transaction pertaining to M/s Smridhi Sponge.
5 (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in making addition on the basis of impounded documents.

(ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the above addition by misinterpreting the provision of section 292C of the Act.

7.18 Hence from the above discussion, I hold that on the basis of impounded documents which relates to two assessment years i.e. 2007-08 and 2008-09 the following additions deserves to be made:

Assessment Year 2007-08:
(a) gross profit calculated on the basis of Trading account made by the AO on the basis of notings in the impounded document. Rs. 20,60,108
(b) Minimum capital required to carry on the business outside the books i.e. Capital determined x Sales for Assessment Year 2007-08 as per para 7.17 Total sales as per impounded documents 1,69,14,743 x 2,78,11,454 4,71,68,832 Rs.99,73,187 Rs.1,20,33,295 Assessment Year 2008-09:
(a) gross profit calculated on the basis of Trading account made by the AO on the basis of notings in the impounded document. Rs. 14,33,880
(b) Minimum capital required to carry on the business outside the books i.e. Capital determined X Sales for Assessment Year 2008-09 as per para 7.17 Total sales as per impounded documents 1,69,14,743 x 1,93,57,378 4,71,68,832 Rs. 69,41,555 Rs.83,75,435 The appellant thus gets a relief of Rs.1,47,78,159 (Rs.2,68,11,454 minus Rs.20,68,108 minus Rs.99,73,187), out of the total addition of Rs.2,68,11,454 made in Assessment year 2007-08."

(emphasis provided) 10.3. In the above-mentioned peculiar facts, we find that considering the fact that the information was available on the computer print out found from the assessee's premises the CIT(A) invoking the provisions of section 292C and relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sonal Construction (cited supra) and CIT vs Indeo Airways P. Ltd. (ITA No.- 1620 and 1622/2010) and the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of ACIT vs Hiren Vasantlal Shah 19 Taxman 241 dismissed the objection of the assessee and came to the conclusion that since the impounded documents were found from the assessee's business premises necessarily the presumption that they relate to transactions with M/s Smridhi Sponge outside the assessee's books of accounts. However on the quantum of the additions partial relief was given which is challenged by the Revenue. The said finding has been challenged by the assessee.