ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S BRIJWASI IMPEX PVT. LTD., DELHI

per the punchnama was of 9787.06 grams. According to the assessee, the

total weight of gold chain found at the time of search was almost tallying

with the figure mentioned on page No.3 – Annexure A-17 of the seized

documents. The figure 9750.140 clearly indicated weight in grams as usually

written in case of jewelry item. Considering all these material facts on the

issue, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has given the following finding:

“5.4 I have considered rival position carefully. I have also perused relevant documents produced before me. The A.O. had made the above addition on the basis of seized documents page -3 Annexure-17 which appears as under: Trial Balance for in 99.5 TOUCH AS ON 06/12/2005 A.CODE TYPE NAME NAAM JAMA

D AS-DEBTOR 13072.100

TE TE-TRADING EXPENSES 3321.870

TI TI-TRADING INCOME 9750.140

GROSS TOTAL 13072.100 13072.010

0.90

The A.O. had adopted “9750.140” from the above document as Rs.97,50,140 and treated as trading income of M/s. Haryana Chain. However, the Assessing Officer has not given any basis on which the

said figure of 9750.140 can be construed as Rs.97,50,140. There is no mention of any corroborating documents/evidence found during the course of search which indicates that the said figure represents trading results in rupees. According to the appellant, the said figure represents the quantity of stock of gold chains of M/s. Haryana Chains. The total value of gold chains found at the time of search valued by departmental valuer as per the Punchnama was of 9787.06 grams. According to the appellant, the total weight of gold chains found at the time of search is almost tallied with the figure mentioned in page 3 Annexure A-17 of the seized documents. The figure 9750.140 clearly indicates weight in grams as usually written in case of jewelry items. The figure in no stretch of imagination can be concluded as representing amounts in rupees. After examination of the copy of seized documents as represented above and on the facts and circumstances of the case I tend to agree with the contention of the appellant that the said figure of 9750.140 may represent weight of jewellery of M/s. Haryana Chains but in any case cannot be construed as representing any amount in rupees. The A.O. had not given any reason or basis for taking the said figure as representing rupees but the appellant had produced circumstantial evidence of valuation report to support his argument. In view of the above discussion, the addition made by the A.O. on this account is uncalled for an therefore, directed to be deleted.

The A.O. had made this addition on protective basis treating the M/s. Haryana Chains as partnership between Sh. Vijay Kumar and Sh.

Satish Arora. However, no documents partnership deed etc. regarding partnership was found at the time of search. Moreover, the appellant had surrendered the part of the stock of M/s. Haryana Chains in the hands of the appellant, M/s. Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. has also reduced the said surrendered amount of Rs.22,82,024 from the total addition made on the basis of seized documents. Thus the A.O. has indirectly accepted the fact that M/s. Haryana Chains is unit of the appellant. In view of the above discussion in my considered opinion M/s. Haryana Chains is unit of M/s. Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd. as claimed by the appellant and therefore, any the income of the M/s. Haryana Chains should be assessed in the hands of the appellant substantively. The A.O. is directed accordingly.”

to treat the figure “9750.140” found written on the seized document marked

as page No. 3 to Annexure A-17 as Rs.97,50,140 in absence of any

corroborative material/evidence. On the other hand, the assessee was able to

explain the figure in the form of weight in grams as usually written in case

of jewelry item. We are thus of the view that the Learned CIT(Appeals) was

justified in deleting the addition of Rs.97,50,140 made by the Assessing

Officer with this observation that the assessee had already surrendered an

amount of Rs.22,82,024 on account of part of the stock of M/s. Haryana

Chain. We are thus not inclined to interfere with the First Appellate Order in

this regard. The same is upheld. The ground No.3 (Revenue) is accordingly

rejected.

Rs.61,66,254 in respect of stock of gold chain found from the premises of

M/s. Haryana Chains. During the course of search on 9.12.2005 on the

business premises of M/s. Haryana Chains, stock of jewellery weighing

9181 grams valued at Rs.61,66,254 was found. Since the assessee himself

was claiming M/s. Haryana Chain, its unit, the Assessing Officer made the

addition of Rs.61,66,254 as income of the assessee on protective basis. The

Learned CIT(Appeals), however, has deleted the addition being satisfied

with the explanation furnished by the assessee.

the assessment order. The Learned AR on the other hand has reiterated the

submissions made before the authorities below.

the Learned CIT(Appeals) has discussed the issue in detail and vide para No.

6.4, he has given finding on the issue. The content of the said para No. 6.4 of

the First Appellate Order is being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:

6.4 “I have gone through the observations of the Assessing Officer and also considered submissions made by the appellant and have also considered the amount surrendered by it at Rs. 22,82,024/-. The Assessing Officer had made the addition of Rs. 6166254/- on the basis of stock found during the course of search in the premises of M/s Haryana Chains. During the course of assessment proceedings the appellant had claimed that the M/s Haryana Chains is a unit of M/s Brijwasi Impex P. Ltd. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the appellant and proceeded to make the addition on protective basis. However, the appellant has explained that the stock of gold chains weighting 9787.06 gms valued at Rs. 6166254/- was out of 5000 gms of pure gold held by the assessee company (M/s Brijwasi Impex P. Ltd.) in their regular books of accounts. The 5000 gms of pure gold available in the regular books of accounts of M/s Brijwasi Impex P. Ltd. was not found at the time of search due to the fact that the pure gold were issued to M/s Haryana Chains, a unit of M/s Brijwasi Impex P. Ltd., for making gold chains etc. Those gold chains made out of the above 5000 gms of pure gold were found during the course of search at the premises of M/s Haryana Chains which came to 6165 gms. The

evidence of issuance of 110 gms of pure gold to M/s Haryana Chains as per the stock register and the balance 4890 was claimed to have been issued subsequently. The balance 3016 gms of gold chains valued at Rs. 2282024/- were found which were not accounted for and therefore, the same was surrendered by the appellant at the time of filing of return of income. As 5000 gms of pure gold were available with the appellant in the regular books of accounts and were not found at the premises of the M/s Brijwasi Impex P. Ltd., and the evidence of issuance of pure gold to M/s Haryana Chains is available in the stock register, it can reasonably be concluded that the gold chains found at the premises of M/s Haryana Chains were out of the pure gold issued by M/s Brijwasi Impex P. Ltd. Since the said pure gold were already disclosed in the regular books of accounts no further addition on account of the gold chains made out of those disclosed gold can be made. However, at the time of search and seizure some excess stock valued at 2282024 were found at the premises of M/s Haryana Chains which the appellant had already disclosed at the time of filing of its return of income. Therefore, no further addition on this account is called for. Therefore, the addition made on this account is directed to be deleted. However, as has been discussed above the M/s Haryana Chains is an unit of

M/s Brijwasi Impex P. Ltd. and, therefore, the income of M/s Haryana Chains should be assessed in the hands of M/s Brijawasi Impex P. Ltd. only on substantive basis. The appeal of the appellant on this ground is allowed as above.”

CIT(Appeals) on the issue discussed hereinabove, by the Revenue, we do

not find reason to interfere with the First Appellate Order deleting the

addition of Rs.61,66,254. Out of 5000 grams of pure gold found during the

course of search at the premises of M/s. Haryana Chain which came to 6165

grams, the evidence of issuance of 110 grams of pure gold to M/s. Haryana

Chian as per the stock register and the balance 4890 grams was claimed to

have been issued subsequently. The balance 3016 grams of gold chains

valued at Rs.22,82,024 were found, which was not accounted for and

therefore the same was surrendered by the assessee at the time of filing of

return of income. As 5,000 grams of pure gold were available with the

assessee in the regular books of account and were not found at the premises

of assessee and the evidence of issuance of pure gold to m/s. Haryana

Chains was available in the stock register, hence, the Learned CIT(Appeals)

has rightly accepted that the gold chains found at the premises of Haryana

Chain were out of the pure gold issued by the assessee and since the said

pure gold were already disclosed in the regular books of account, no further

addition on account of gold chains made out of those disclosed gold can be

made. The First Appellate Order on the issue is reasoned one, hence, we are

not inclined to interfere therewith. The same is upheld. Ground No.4 is

accordingly rejected.

Ground Nos.5 (Revenue) & Ground Nos.2 to 4 (Assessee):

search and seizure proceedings at the business premises of the assessee, the

Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.68,08,000 on the basis of valuation

of stock of silver weighing 16,400 kgs. determined by the valuer of the

department (DVO). The Learned CIT(Appeals) has restricted the additions

to the extent of Rs.15,22,096, hence, the parties are in cross appeals.

learned CIT(DR) has basically placed reliance on the assessment order. The

Learned AR on the other hand tried to justify the relief given by the Learned

CIT(Appeals). He contended that keeping in view the facts of the case as

well as explanation of the assessee, the Learned CIT(Appeals) should have

deleted the entire addition.

value of the stock of silver found during the course of search at Rs.21,27,200

with the submission that the value of silver belonged to karigars/suppliers. It

was submitted that stock of silver utensils and articles to the tune of 645.500

kgs. (convertible into pure silver of 516.400 kgs.) was found and valued at

Rs.68,08,000 by the DVO. The said stock was got revalued by the assessee

company on 10.12.2005 by a registered valuer Shri S.K. Mehra at

Rs.52,85,904. The assessee had accounted for this value in its books of

account for the year ended 31.3.2006 by debiting stock of silver items and

crediting the said amount as other income. This treatment of the value of

silver item in the books of account was evidenced by the copy of audited

balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year ended on 31.3.2006

made available at page Nos. 19 to 32 of the paper book. The assessee also

submitted that Schedule-K of other income annexed to the profit and loss

account shows the amount Rs.52,85,904 as additional income and

corresponding amount shown in Schedule of Notes at para H attached to

balance sheet give details of inventory including value of silver articles at

Rs.52,85,904. Accordingly, the value of silver articles at Rs.52,85,904 was

taken as income and the same amount was added as value of silver utensils

and articles in the inventory disclosed at Rs.1,99,94,997. It was further

explained that the said stock of the silver item was sold for Rs.57,06,425 in

assessment year 2007-08, therefore, the addition on account of silver articles

to the extent of Rs.52,85,904 is a duplicate addition and deserves to be

deleted.

it had claimed silver worth Rs.21,27,200 belonging to the Karigars out of the

silver found and claimed the same by way of deduction from the value of

gold chains surrendered in the revised return. The value of silver belonging

to Karigars was arrived at on the basis of seized loose papers during search.

Photo copies of these loose papers made available at page Nos. 59 to 107 of

the paper book. The Assessing Officer ignored both the claims of the

assessee regarding Rs.52,85,904 and Rs.21,27,200. The Learned

CIT(Appeals) has also restricted the relief to the extent of Rs.52,85,904 i.e.

disclosed value of silver articles in its balance sheet and profit and loss

account.

from karigars at Rs.21,27,200 was made as a result of non-consideration of

the same by the Assessing Officer in his order although he had made

reference about it in the assessment order. The above disallowance resulted

from netting off of the additional income (Rs.22,82,024 – Rs.21,27,200 )

offered for taxation at Rs.1,54,824, i.e. income declared in revised return.

Conversely, amount of Rs.21,27,200 pertains to value of silver claimed to

have been belonging to karigars and, therefore, the amount was considered

as a liability deductible from the additional income. The Learned AR

submitted that the claim was made on the basis of loose papers seized during

the course of search as per Annexure-13 containing page Nos. 1 to 32. In

this regard, he referred page Nos. 59 to 107 of the paper book , wherein

copies of Annexures along with its summary has been made available. The

Learned AR submitted that from the summary of these ledger accounts of

karigars on page No. 59, it may be noted that the total quantity of pure silver

received in excess from them was 163.50 kgs. and amounts due to them

against labour charges was Rs.1,68,969. The excess silver 166.540 kgs. was

valued @ Rs.13,000 per kg., the prevailing rates at that time and the amount

of Rs.21,27,200 was considered due to them in addition to labour charges of

Rs.1,68,969. He submitted that since the assessee has already included value

of silver amounting to Rs.52,85,902 in the balance sheet and has considered

the same as income, the liability of Rs.21,27,200 payable to karigars towards

silver belonging to them is deductible.

(found during the search) by the DVO at Rs.68,08,000 is based on 80% of

purity. The DVO did not show net weight of silver on specific column

though final conclusion drawn was at 80%. The registered valuer has,

however, valued the silver at Rs.52,85,904 already declared by the assessee

as additional income showing silver stock and additional income. The value

of B-1 silver which is 60% pure, was deleted.

detail and has recorded his finding in para No. 7.5 of the First Appellate

Order, which is being reproduced hereunder:

7.5 “I have considered the observation of the Assessing Officer and the submission of the appellant carefully. During the course of search in the premises of the appellant silver utensils and articles weighting 645.500 gms (pure silver 516.400 kg), were found. The value of the silver utensils and articles were valued by the Departmental Valuer at Rs. 6808000/-. However, the

registered valuer engaged by the appellant have valued the same at Rs. 5285904/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had made the addition of entire value of Rs. 6808000/- as the entire stock was considered to be unaccounted. The Assessing Officer had also not allowed the claim of the appellant that certain amount of silver valued at Rs. 2127200/- belong to Karigars/suppliers. During the appellate proceedings the appellant had stated that the revalued amount of silver and articles amounting to Rs. 5285904/- were already disclosed in FY ending on 31.3.2006 (AY 2006-07). The evidence of said disclosure is evident from the P&L Account and balance sheet of the return of income filed. However, the Assessing Officer had not considered the above disclosure in the assessment and proceeded to make addition of the entire amount at the value of Rs. 6808000/- as per DVO. I have perused the P&L Account and balance sheet and other details submitted at the time of assessment proceedings and the appellate proceedings and after considering the submission of the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the value of silver items which is already been disclosed in the P&L account and the balance sheet should not be again added in the assessment. However, the valuation by the DVO cannot be ignored as no defects have been specifically pointed out in the valuation made

by him. Since the DVO is an expert in valuation of silver items etc. I have no alternative but to accept the valuation made by the DVO. However, while making the addition the amount of value already disclosed at Rs. 5285904/- should be reduced from this addition. Therefore, total addition on this account should be made at (Rs. 6808000 – Rs. 5285904) = Rs. 1522096/-. Therefore, the appellant get relief of Rs. 5285904/-. The appellant has also claimed that silver items valued at Rs. 2127200/- were belong to Karigars and suppliers and, therefore, the same should be reduced from the total addition on unaccounted silver items. Since these items were found at the premises of the appellant at the time of search these were to be considered to be of the appellant on the as per section 292C of the I.T. Act, unless the assessee prove otherwise. However, no authentic evidence on this account could be produced to prove that the items belong to the Karigar suppliers during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings. Therefore, this contention of the appellant has been rejected. Relief allowed at Rs. 5285904/-.”

CIT(Appeals) is concerned, we find that it is based on justifiable reason

noted by him that the valued amount of silver and articles amounting to

Rs.52,85,905 were already disclosed in financial year ending on 31.3.2006 (

Assessment year 2006-07). It was supported with evidence as the amount

was disclosed in the profit and loss account and balance sheet of the return

of income filed. We thus do not find reason to interfere with the First

Appellate Order so far as deletion of Rs.52,85,904 is concerned. The same is

upheld. The ground No. 5 of the appeal preferred by the Revenue is thus

rejected.

concerned, we find that in ground No.2 additions of Rs.15,22,096 on

account of value of silver item based on DVO report (Ground No.2) and

Rs.21,27,200 made on account of value of silver item belonging to karigars

(Ground No. 3) have also been dealt with by the Learned CIT(Appeals) in

the above findings. Ground No. 4 is in support of ground No.3 only. The

Learned CIT(Appeals) has upheld the addition of Rs.21,27,200 by denying

the claim of the assessee that the silver item valued at Rs.21,27,200 were

belonged to karigars and suppliers and, therefore, the same should be

reduced from the total addition on unaccounted silver items. The Learned

CIT(Appeals) has denied the claim on the basis that no authentic evidence in

support of the claim that the items were belonging to the karigars and

suppliers was filed. Since the assessee could not improve its case even

before the ITAT in support of this claim, we do not find reason to interfere

with the finding of the Learned CIT(Appeals) in this regard. The ground

Nos. 3 and 4 of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly rejected.

account of valuation of silver items determined by the DVO is concerned,

the relevant facts are that the DVO had valued the silver utensils and articles

at Rs.68,08,000 which was valued by the registered valuer engaged by the

assessee at Rs.52,85,904. During the course of assessment proceedings, the

Assessing Officer added the entire value of Rs.68,08,000 considering the

same as unaccounted. The Learned CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of

Rs.52,85,904 out of the addition of Rs.68,08,000 and added the remaining

amount of Rs.15,22,096. In other words, the difference between the value

determined by the DVO and that determined by the registered valuer has

been sustained by the Learned CIT(Appeals). This addition has been

opposed by the assessee in ground No.2 of its appeal. We have already

discussed their contentions in this regard, hereinabove, in the submissions of

the Learned AR. The main contention of the assessee in this regard remained

that the valuation of the registered valuer at Rs.52,85,904 was disclosed in

the profit and loss account and balance sheet and has been accepted by the

Learned CIT(Appeals). It was contended that the DVO has valued the silver

items on the basis of its purity at 80% without showing net weight of silver

on specific column. The value of the declared B-1 silver was 60% pure only.

In our view, the authorities below have not given reason as to why they have

given preference of the valuation report of the DVO over the valuation

report furnished by the registered valuer engaged by the assessee. Besides,

the value of the silver articles determined by the registered valuer disclosed

in the profit and loss account and balance sheet has been accepted by the

Learned CIT(Appeals), hence, there was no reason for him to sustain the

addition of Rs.15,22,096 on the basis of the difference between the value

determined by the DVO and that determined by the registered valuer. We

thus while setting aside First Appellate Order in this regard direct the

Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.15,22,096. The ground No.2

of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.

claimed loss of Rs.34,95,000 by the authorities below. The assessee claimed

that the said loss was incurred to the assessee on account of advance paid

towards purchase of agricultural land.

estate business by paying the amount in question as advance for purchase of

land but the same could not be materialized and in result the assessee

incurred the loss. The loss incurred was a Revenue loss and thus it should

have been allowed.

authorities below. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has given his finding on the

issue in para No. 8.3 of the First Appellate Order, reproduced hereunder:

8.3 “I have gone through the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer for making the above addition and the submissions and supporting documents submitted by the appellant. The appellant had debited an amount of Rs. 34,95,000/- in the P&L account under the head loss in property business. The appellant had made advances to agriculturist for purchase of land which were forfitted by the sellers of land for not fulfilling the commitment of payments of the balance amount in time. During the course of assessment proceedings as well as the appellant

proceedings the appellant could not substantiate why the loss incurred in the purchase of land should be allowed as business expenses of the appellant. Sale and purchase of land is not the regular business of the assessee. The assessee deals in the business of bullion and jewellery in the regular course of business. The loan is a capital loan in view of the above discussion the claim of the appellant on this ground is dismissed.”

the assessee had debited a sum of Rs.34,95,000 under the head “loss in

property business in profit and loss account”. The assessee was asked by the

Assessing Officer to furnish evidence in support and since the assessee

failed to furnish the same, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim. The

contention of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that the amount

pertained to advances given to agriculturists for purchase of land to

undertake real estate business but the amount was forfeited by the sellers,

since the assessee was not able to fulfill its commitment for payment of

balance amount. The assessee enclosed ledger account and copy of notice of

lawyer of vendors in support of the claim. Undisputedly, the assessee deals

in the business of bullion and jewellery in the regular course of business and

thus the claimed loss in absence of sufficient evidence in support, in our

view, has been rightly denied by the authorities below. The same is upheld.

Ground Nos. 5 and 6 of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly rejected.

crores by the Learned CIT(Appeals). The Assessing Officer had made this

addition on the basis of a pay-in-slip dated 7.4.2005 for the cash deposit of

Rs.4 crores in cash in bank account with SBI, Kalka Ji, New Delhi, found

during the course of search. The explanation given by the assessee in this

regard was not found satisfactory by the Assessing Officer and hence he

added the amount in the total income of the assessee. The Learned

CIT(Appeals) has, however, deleted the addition.

assessment order. The Learned AR on the other hand has reiterated the

submissions made before the authorities below.

the addition of Rs. 4 crores was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis

of pay-in-slip dated 07.04.2005 found during the course of search. In this

pay-in-slip, cash of Rs.4 crores was shown deposited in the bank account

with SBI, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The assessee explained the source of the said

deposits out of cash balance available with it as per cash book. In support,

the assessee had furnished photocopy of the audited balance sheet of the

company for the year ended 31.3.2005. In the Schedule-6 attached to the

balance sheet was shown cash balance of Rs.4,40,02,625 as on 31.3.2005.

The said closing balance was brought forward as opening balance on

01.04.2005 in the financial year 01.04.2005 to 31.3.2006. Photo copy of

cash book for assessment year 01.04.2005 to 08.04.2005 was also furnished.

With the help of photo copies of cash book, the assessee tried to explain that

opening cash balance of Rs.4,40,02,625 was brought forward on 01.04.2005

and was carried on day to day to 07.04.2005. On 07.04.2005, there was

opening balance of Rs.4,79,45,415 out of the same the said amount of Rs.

4crores was deposited in the account of the assessee maintained with SBI,

Kalka Ji, New Delhi. Copy of bank statement in respect of accounts with

SBI, Kalkaji was enclosed showing the deposit of cash on 07.04.2005. The

cash deposited on 07.04.2005 was withdrawn on 08.04.2005 by inward

clearing/cheque no. 00981623 issued by the assessee company in favour of

standard chartered mutually fund. The cheque was issued for making an

investment for the purchase of units in G.C. F.D. Grindlays cash fund daily

dividend. A copy of account statement with standard chartered bank was

enclosed. After verifying the above facts, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has

deleted the addition vide para No.9.3 of the First Appellate Order,

reproduced herein under:

9.3 “During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had made the above addition on the ground that assessee did not furnish the copy of account of State Bank of India and did not explain the source of cash deposit of Rs. 4 crore on 7.4.2005 in the account. During the course of appellate proceeding the appellant stated that the source of said cash deposit was out of cash balance available in the cash book of the appellant. The fact was available with the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment but was not appreciated properly. Copies of the relevant cash book and balance sheet along with bank statement was submitted during the course of appellate proceedings. From the regular cash book of the appellant it is apparent that there was cash balance of Rs. 43945415/- on 7.4.2005 and sufficient cash balance have been carried forward from 31st March, 2005. The cash deposit of Rs. 4 crore have been made out of the cash balance available on that day as per regular books of accounts. Therefore, addition made on this account as unexplained cash deposit in the bank account is not legally tenable and, therefore, the same is directed to be deleted.”

recipient, there is nothing on record to establish that assessee has in fact paid Rs.27,00,000 out of his undisclosed income. 6. The order of the Learned CIT(Appeals) was passed without application of mind in as much as that he has though applauded the contentions of the assessee yet sustained the order of the Assessing Officer”.

record.

of BPTP Ltd., Connaught Circus, New Delhi on 15.211.2007, a letter dated 3.7.2007 belonging to the assessee was found and seized. In the said letter, the assessee had communicated details of six plots booked by it in the upcoming projects of BPTP Ltd. as well as payment made against such

booking in cash and by cheques. The payment aggregating to Rs.18 lacs were made through six cheques dated 17.4.2006 of Rs.3 lacs each bearing

Nos. 125351 to 125356 apart from an amount of Rs.27 lacs paid in cash.

BPTP Ltd. in its books of account had claimed to have allowed the above

amount of Rs.27 lacs as “special discount” comprising of Rs.4,50,000

against six plots for basic purchase price of Rs.32,40,000 each. BTPO Ltd.

had shown “special discount” ranging from 0% to 45.65%. The Learned

CIT(Appeals) has upheld the addition merely on the basis that special

discount shown ranging from 0% to 45.65% is not a normal practice in the

line of builders. He has also doubted the seized material on the basis that the

same is not genuine and is a device to cover up the cash receipts which have

not been accounted for in the books of account. We do not concur with the

approach of the authorities below as they have ignored the seized material

and added Rs.27 lacs merely on the basis that the special discount ranging

from zero percent to 45.65% given by the builder against the booking of six

plots by the assessee in their view was not inconsonance with the normal

practice in the builders line. The material found during the course of search

has got evidentiary value and the same cannot be ignored merely on the

basis of assumption and presumption. We thus while setting aside the orders

of the authorities below in this regard direct the Assessing Officer to delete

the addition of Rs.27 lacs made and upheld by them ignoring the seized

material. The related grounds involving the issue are thus allowed.

appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed and that preferred by the assessee for that assessment year is partly allowed, and appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30 .10.2015

Sd/- Sd/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30 /10/2015 Mohan Lal