R.K. Gupta, J.M. - (1.) THESE are 15 appeals by different assessees belonging to Mustaq Ahmed group of cases, Makrana. THESE appeals are filed against orders passed under s. 158BC consequent to the search operation under IT Act, 1961. The search was conducted on 18th Dec., 1996, onwards at the residential and business premises of Mustaq group of cases. Since the issues involved and grounds in these appeals are of similar nature and inter-related, therefore, these appeals are being disposed off by this common order.
(2.) During the course of hearing also the learned counsel of the appellants as well as the learned Departmental Representative put-forth common arguments for all these appeals. The paper books for all these cases are also common. Out of 15 appellants 12 are engaged in trading and manufacturing activity of marble at Makrana. The main case of the group is appeal No. 19/Jp/1998 pertaining to Shri Mustaq Ahmed, the senior most family member of the group. The assessment order in this case is much exhausted and was made the basis of arguments by both the parties. We shall deal with all the cases together because the issues are similar and related and it would be appropriate for the sake of convenience. During the course of search, cash, jewellery, huge stock of marble blocks and slabs and loose documents indicating under billing of sales, suppression of sales and job work income were found. The assessee group has filed return under s. 158BC declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 1,54,08,341 for all the assessees of the group. The AO completed the assessment in all the cases at Rs. 14,98,52,154. Now we will take the appeals together of all the assessees, groundwise. In relation to first ground pertaining to the opportunity, the facts were stated by the learned counsel but he opted for arguing the individual ground on merits. Since we are also discussing all the additions and grounds on merits, no specific finding are required in relation to this ground and it shall be discussed if required along with the ground concerned.
(3.) IN ground No. 2(i) in all the 12 appeals where marble business is there, the appellant has disputed the determination of income by estimating the under billing for the whole block period. According to the appellant the undisclosed income for the block period should have determined on the basis of undisclosed assets and the undisclosed expenditure which are more apparent and evident than a wild guess work of income by estimating the under billing for the whole block period for all the persons of the group.;