M/s Punnie BKO, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITSSA 41/CHANDI/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7822 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2003
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K KHEMWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S R CHHABRA
• Keywords: Document seized; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 145; 132; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITSS NO. 41/CHD/2003 BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1988 TO 08.01.1999 M/S PUNNIE, BKO V THE ACIT, RANGE IV, 155, BHARAT NAGAR CHOWK, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: --------------- (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.R.CHHABRA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K.KHEMWAL DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.01.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2003 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS:- A) IN REJECTING THE LEGAL OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO OPPORTUNITY HAVING BEEN DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO REGARDING THE COMPUTATION OF FINAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME WORKED OUT BY HIM AS WELL AS BY THE JCIT RANGE-IV, LUDHIANA WHILE GIVING APPROVAL TO THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2 B) IN UPHOLDING THE ESTIMATE OF SALES FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD BY NOT APPRECIATING THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS DULY SUPPORTED BY ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE CASE LAWS ON THE SUBJECT. C) IN UPHOLDING THE ESTIMATE OF GP RATE AT 23% IGNORING THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS AND OTHER COMPARABLE CASES IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS. D) IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT NATURE WHICH ARE NORMALLY INCURRED AND SOME OF WHICH WERE PAYMENTS TO GOVT. AND SEMI GOVT. ORGANIZATIONS SAY SALES TAX, ELECTRICITY CHARGES ETC. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES PERMISSION TO RAISE, AMEND OR ADD ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MARKED UND ER VARIOUS SEGMENTS FROM (A) TO (D), WHEREBY THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G THE ESTIMATE OF SALES FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD BY NOT APPRECIATING THE ASSESSEE'S SUB MISSIONS, DULY SUPPORTED BY ENTRIES IN THE ASSESSEE'S DOCUMEN TS AND CASE LAWS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED THE UPHOLD ING OF ESTIMATE OF GP RATE AT 23% IGNORING THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED UPHO LDING OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT NATURE WHICH ARE NORMALLY INCURRED. 4. LD. 'AR' DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO. 1 (A) AND HENC E, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3 5. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. LD. 'AR' CONTENDED THAT NO ESTIMATE CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT O F BLOCK ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BC/BD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). IN THIS CASE, THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS U/S 132 OF THE ACT WERE CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI LAKHB IR SINGH AT 183-184G, BRS NAGAR, LUDHIANA ON 08.01.1999. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION, SEVERAL INCRI MINATING DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO M/S PUNNIE BOK WERE SEIZED. CONSEQUENTLY, AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT ON 24.11.1999 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN IN FORM 2B WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE SAID NOTICE FO R THE BLOCK PERIOD COMMENCING FROM 1.4.1988 TO 8.1.1999. IN RE SPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN ON 11.12.2000 DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.7.50 LACS. THE AO, ON EXAMINATION OF THE SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE DOCUMENTS, FOUND UNACCOUNTED SALES OF BRICKS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO HELD THAT THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REFLECT TRUE AND CORRECT PR OFITS IN RESPECT OF BRICKS KILN. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT RELIABLE. ACCORDINGLY, TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 WERE INVOKED BY THE ASSES SEE AND AFTER A DETAILED DISCUSSION AND EXAMINATION OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF FINANCIAL YEAR FALLING UNDE R THIS BLOCK PERIOD, UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.70,13,557/- WAS DETERMINED BY THE AO. THE AO ADOPTED GP RATE AT 23% FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT WAS CATEGORICALLY HELD BY THE AO THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT E NTITLED FOR 4 ANY EXPENSES AS THE SAME HAD ALREADY BEEN COVERED U NDER THE EXPENSES HEAD OF 77%, SINCE GP HAS BEEN ADOP TED AT 23%. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING GP RATE FOR VARIOUS FINANCIAL YEARS FROM 1993-94 TO 1997-98 BET WEEN 12.49% TO 14%. THE AO ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISIO N OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER O F SALES TAX, MADHYA PRADESH V H.M.ESUF ALI, H.M.ABDULI (197 3) 90 ITR 275 (S.C), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PART OF THE YEAR ARE FOUND UNA CCOUNTED, IT MAY BE MULTIPLIED IN THE WHOLE YEAR TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE COMPLETE YEAR. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS PROV ISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV, THE ASSESSEE IS COMPETENT TO MAKE ESTI MATE BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BC(B) CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 READ WITH SECTION 144 ARE APPLICABLE WHILE FRAMING BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC (B) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE PROVISION IS REP RODUCED HEREUNDER : 158BC(B)- THE AO SHALL PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE MANNE R LAID DOWN IN SECTION 158BB AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142, SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 14 3 (SECTION 144 AND SECTION 145) SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY; 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE AND ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL AND CONSIDERATION OF THE R ELEVANT 5 PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) A ND THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION U/S 158BC , WHICH CON FERS JURISDICTION ON THE AO TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 AS ALSO SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THUS, AO IS CO MPETENT TO MAKE ESTIMATE BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMEN TS. 8. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BC(B) PARTICULARLY INSE RTION OF SECTION 144 WAS MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE VIDE FINAN CE ACT 2002 W.E.F. 01.07.1995. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT SITUATION OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS EXTENSIVELY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND DETERMINED THE SALES OF BRICKS OUTSIDE THE REQUIRED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH WERE A DMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1993-94, 199 4-95, 1995-96 AND 1998-99. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION TH AT THE AO WORKED OUT SALE OF BRICKS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1996-97 AT RS.61,68,819/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WORKED SALES OF BRICKS AT RS.59.63 LACS. SIMILARLY, FOR THE FINANC IAL YEAR 1997-98, THE AO WORKED OUT THE SALES AT RS.64,26,73 5/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT THE SALE OF BRICKS AT RS.61,68,819/- THEREFORE, IN THESE TWO FINANCIAL Y EARS, VIZ 1996-97 AND 1997-98, THERE IS INSIGNIFICANT DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE AO AND THE ASSES SEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, BASED ON THE A NALYSIS AND EXAMINATION OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOR THE PUR POSE OF QUANTIFICATION OF THE SALE OF BRICKS OUTSIDE THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT IS ADMITTED FOR THE REASONS THAT IN THE ABO VESAID FINANCIAL YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF ADMITTED T HE SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF 6 THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ESTIMATION OF SALE OF BRICKS ON THE BASIS OF S EIZED DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE MADE, IS NOT STATUTORILY TENABL E. 9. LD. 'AR' CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED T O APPRECIATE THE FACTUM AFTER CONFIRMING THE GP RATE, TO CONSIDER AND ALLOW EXPENSES APPEARING IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN SUCH CASES, IT IS PROPER TO FOLLOW NP AND NOT GP. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF C.V. SUNNY V ACIT (1008) 7 DTR (CHENNAI) (TRIB) 478. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SAI D DECISION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : SEARCH & SEIZURE-BLOCK ASSESSMENT-COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME-UNDISCLOSED INCOME, WHICH CAN BE ASSESSED UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B SHOULD BE THAT AMOUNT WHICH IS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND SUCH OTHER MATERIAL OR INFORMA TION AS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AND ARE RELATABLE TO S UCH EVIDENCE-IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR THE EVIDENCE HA S ALREADY COME ON RECORD OR HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEN THAT EVIDENCE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN FOUND AS A RES ULT OF SEARCH-SEARCH PARTY FOUND THE SUPPRESSED SALES RELATING TO 22 DAYS AT RS.1.86 CRORES RELATING TO T HE PERIOD 10 TH OCT.,2002 TO 3 RD NOV.,2002 AS AGAINST DISCLOSED SALES OF RS.26.66 LAKHS-AO, ON THE BASIS OF GP DISCLOSED IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR THE ABOVE PER IOD, ESTIMATED SALES FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AND MADE ADDIT IONS TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 199 7- 98 TO 2003-04 (UPTO 26 TH NOV.,2002) FALLING IN THE BLOCK PERIOD-NOT JUSTIFIED-BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE FRA MED ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH IN THIS CASE IS SALES PARTICULARS RELATING TO 22 DAYS I.E. 10 TH OCT.,2002 TO 3 RD NOV.,2002-NO OTHER MATERIAL OR ASSET DETAILS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH-IN THE FORMULA 7 ADOPTED BY THE AO THERE IS NO QUESTION OF BEST JUDG MENT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED INCOME FROM UNACCOUNTED SALES-IN THE STATEMENTS OF ASSESSEE RECORDED DURING SEARCH, THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH COULD BE TERMED AS EVIDENCE ON THE B ASIS OF WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME COULD BE COMPUTED-I F ANY MATERIAL IS COLLECTED BY THE REVENUE CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH WHICH IS NOT RELATING TO THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, THAT MAY NOT GIVE AUTHORITY TO THE DEPART MENT TO MAKE THE COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ESTIMATION BASIS UNDER S. 158BB OR ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 158BC ESPECIALLY WHEN THE INCOME RELATING TO UNACCOUNTED SALES HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT-ASSESSEE HAVING ALREADY DISCLOSED THE INCOME FROM UNACCOUNTED SALES IN THE REGULAR RETURN , THE ADEQUACY OR INADEQUACY OF THIS INCOME CANNOT BE QUESTIONED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT-AS THE ISSUE IS RELATING TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME ON THE BASIS OF MULTIPLICATION OF SUPPRESSED TURNOVER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND NOT MAKING ADDITION ON THE BAS IS OF ANSWER TO A PARTICULAR QUESTION, SUCH ANSWER IS NOT RELEVANT AS THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ANSWER-MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT UNDER S. 132(4) REGARDING SUPPRESSION OF SALES, THAT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE BASIS FOR ADDITION, THOUGH THERE WAS NO SEIZED MATE RIAL RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED PERIOD-SINCE THE WORDS MA Y BE PRESUMED ARE INCORPORATED IN THE SECTION, IT GI VES OPTION TO THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED TO PRESUME THE THINGS-BUT IT IS REBUTTABLE AND IT DOES NOT GIVE DE FINITE AUTHORITY AND NOT A CONCLUSIVE ONE-THE ASSESSEE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO REBUT THE SAME BY PRODUCING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM-SINCE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATIO N FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CONSI DERING THE BASIS FOR ESTIMATION, WHETHER ON GP OR NET PROF IT- HOWEVER, IF AT ALL THE INCOME IS TO BE ESTIMATED, I T HAS TO BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF NET PROFIT ONLY-AO IS DIREC TED TO 8 CONFINE TO DETERMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ONLY ON NET ASSET BASIS BASED ON THE MATERIALS AND EVIDEN CES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IF IT IS NOT REF LECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 10. THE AO, FURTHER, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIO N OF THE ITAT, INDORE IN THE CASE OF EAGLE SEEDS & BIOTECH L TD. V ACIT (100 ITD 301 (INDORE). THE RELEVANT PART OF TH E DECISION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : WHETHER TO DETERMINE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE ON UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH, AO SHOULD APPLY NET PROFIT RATE AS PER BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AND NOT GROSS PROFIT RATE HELD- YES. 11. FURTHER, THE LD. 'AR' PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V PAWAN KUMAR (2008) 9 DTR 104 (P&H). WE HAVE CARE FULLY PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY TH E ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE, BEING MATERI ALLY AND FACTUALLY DIFFERENCE AND DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THE C ASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND NO T THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS INVOLVED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT IS FRAMED BY THE AO U/S 158BC(C) OF THE ACT, ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE REL IANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MISPLACED. 12. LD. 'DR' PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE , RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE . LD. 'AR' CONTENDED THAT NET PROFIT SHOULD BE APPLIED WH ICH RANGES BETWEEN 1.76% TO 6.9%, IN RESPECT OF ASSESSM ENT YEARS FALLING IN THE BLOCK PERIOD DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS. LD. 'AR' ALSO PLACED RELIANC E ON THE COMPARABLE CASE IN THE CASE OF M/S PREETPAL SINGH, BKO AND M/S AMRIK SINGH, BKO. THE COMPARABLE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, AS IN SUCH CASES, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 1 43(3) BASED ON THE BASIS OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. TH ERE WAS NO SEARCH OPERATION CONDUCTED IN SUCH CASES. IN TH E PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAD FRAMED ASSESSMENT ON THE S TRENGTH OF SEIZED INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WHICH CONTAINED S ALES OUTSIDE THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RELE VANT DETAILS. 14. IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT LIKE MUST BE LIKE WITH LIKE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRAWING MEANINGFUL, R ATIONAL AND LEGALLY TENABLE CONCLUSIONS. THE COMPARABLE CA SES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FACTUALLY DIFFERENT AND DISTINGUISHABLE, HENCE, DO NOT SERVE AS A MEASURING STANDARD FOR ADOPTION OF THEIR RESULTS IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO CITE A CA SE BASED ON RATIONAL AND INTELLIGIBLE CRITERIA, IN HIS SCHEM E OF MAKING SUCH COMPARISON. THE OLD PRINCIPLE OF COMPARING LI KE WITH LIKE WAS NOT ADHERED TO AND, HENCE, THE TWIN CRITER IA OF 10 FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT IN THE COMPARABLE CASES, RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE COMPARABLE CASES RELIED UPON BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASES. 15. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE TWO DECISIONS OF THE TRIB UNALS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, DE ALS THE ISSUES PERTAINING TO APPLICABILITY OF NET PROFIT IN SEARCH CASES. THEREFORE, HAVING REGARD TO SUCH CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS COMPUTED BY ADO PTING NET PROFIT FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS FALLING IN THE BLOCK PERIOD, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. THE AO AND THE ASSES SEE ESTIMATED THE SALES OF BRICKS FOR VARIOUS FINANCIAL YEARS AND AT THE COST OF REPETITION, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED TH E SALES COMPUTED BY THE AO FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1993-94, 1994- 95, 1995-96 AND 1998-99 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1996 -97, 1997-98 FALLING UNDER THE BLOCK PERIOD, THERE IS IN SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE WORKING OUT OF THE SALE OF BRICKS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. THUS, H AVING REGARD TO THE DETAILED EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE VARIOUS SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER INCRIMINA TING DOCUMENTS, THE AO HAD WORKED OUT THE SALE OF BRICKS FOR VARIOUS FINANCIAL YEARS IN HIS BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEA R FROM PAGE 2 TO 14 OF THE IMPUGNED BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER . THEREFORE, IN ALL FAIRNESS, HAVING REGARD TO THE IN SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE SALE OF BRICKS IN THE TWO FINANCI AL YEARS, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE SA LES OF BRICKS, WORKED OUT BY THE AO, BEING BASED ON THE EXAMINATION OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND INSIGNIFICANT 11 DIFFERENCE IN TWO FINANCIAL YEARS, AS DISCUSSED EAR LIER. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT BOTH THE LD. 'AR' AND LD. 'DR' ACCEPTED THE FACTUAL POSITION REGARDING THE DETERMI NATION OF SALES OF BRICKS. 16. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS ADOPTED GP AT 2 3% OF SUCH SALES AND COMPUTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AT RS.70,13,557/-. H OWEVER, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT SITUATION OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ANALYSIS OF INCRIMINATING SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, WE DEEM IT FAIR A ND REASONABLE TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE AT 7.85% FOR TH E PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ADJUDICATED IN THE ABOVE TERMS. THE A O IS DIRECTED TO APPLY NP AT 7.85% FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF BLOCK PERIO D. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE VERY SPECIAL IN VIEW OF THE FACTUM OF THE PRAGMATIC EXAMINATION OF THE SEIZED M ATERIAL BY BOTH THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE, LEADING TO ALMOST SIMILAR RESULT IN THE MATTER OF WORKING OUT THE SALE OF BRI CKS. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE BENCH IS BASED ON SU CH SPECIAL FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO STATE IN CLEAR TERMS THAT THIS DECISION IS CONFINED TO TH E FACTS OF THIS CASE AND MAY NOT BE TREATED AS AN AUTHORITY ON ASPECTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED THEREIN, FOR GENERAL APPLIC ATION. 12 17. GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH JAN.,2012. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 9 TH JAN.,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH