- (1.) THE present appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is filed against the order dt. "(1) Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 82,253 on account of disallowance of loss on sale of car holding that this addition is not covered under the definition of undisclosed income, whereas the AO was very much justified in making the said disallowance under s. 158BB(1) ? (2) Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in deleting the additions of Rs. 80,000 and Rs. 3,53,013 made on account of disallowance of losses created in showing devaluation of stock of shares, whereas the assessee has adopted lower rates for valuation of closing stock of the same only as a sort of ploy to reduce the incidence of taxes and without proving purchase of the same
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows.
(3.) THE appeal relates to the block period 1986 -87 to 1996 -97. A search was conducted in the premises of M/s Bhagat were found in the search which related to the respondent -assessee. The seized materials were handed over to the AO of the respondent -assessee under s. 158BD of the Act. Proceedings for block assessment were initiated by the assessing We are concerned in the present appeal relating to the deletion of additions of Rs. 3,53,013, Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 82,253. So far as the deletions of Rs. 3,53,013 and Rs. 20,000 are concerned, we find that the Tribunal had deleted the additions on the ground that these represented the value taken by the AO in respect of the valuation of the stock of shares. The Tribunal has held that the valuation had been done on the basis of stock exchange rates and there was no material before the AO to add up the aforesaid amount. Likewise in respect of the deletion of Rs. 82,253, no material was seized which could have shown that the car had been sold at a higher price and merely because the WDV was more, it could not give any justification for its addition while making the block assessment. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal fails and is dismissed.;