Law:

Section:

[2007] 294 ITR 409 (MP) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Commissioner of Income-tax v. Narmada Ginning & Pressing Factory (No.2) A.K. PATNAIK, CJ. AJIT SINGH, J. M.A.I.T. NO. 112 OF 2006 AUGUST 9, 2007 Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Additions to income â–  Tribunal's finding that addition on account of variation of stock found in course of search was not justified, is a finding of fact [Block period 1-4-1995 to 30-11-2001] The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 30,59,822 on account of variation in stock found in the premises of the respondent in the course of search. In appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that in the business premises of the respondent, stocks of other sister concerns of the respondent were also kept and the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the combined stock of the respondent as well as of its sister concerns, available in the premises of the respondent, should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of finding out whether there was any variation of the stock compared to the stock shown in the books of account of the respondent as well as other sister concerns. After taking into account the combined stock, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that only Rs. 4,96,021 could be added in the hands of the respondent on account of variation of the stock. The Tribunal held that even the said addition was not sustainable. Held that the conclusion of the Tribunal that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of variation of stock found in the course of search was not justified, was based on the assessment of facts by the Tribunal and no substantial question of law as such arose from the order of the Tribunal for decision in the appeal. Section 158B(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Block assessment in search cases - Undisclosed income â–  Proviso to section 113 could not be applied where search took place on 30-11-2001 [Block Period 1-4-1995 to 30-11-2001] Proviso to section 113 could not be applied where search took place on 30-11-2001 and, hence, surcharge could not be levied in such a case. JUDGMENT A.K. Patnaik, CJ.- This is an appeal under section 260A of…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492