CIT v Mange Ram Mittal [2024] 168 taxmann.com 306/ (2025) 482 ITR 130 / 342 CTR 1 / 245 DTR 49 (P&H)(HC) Editorial : Mange Ram Mittal v. ACIT (2006) 103 TTJ 594(SB) (Delhi) (Trib) is affirmed.

S. 158BC : Block assessment-Undisclosed income-Evidence collected and noticed during the search can be considered for assessment-Cross examination of parties-Ghost of benami companies-Assessment order is correctly assessed-No substantial question of law.[S. 158BB, 260A]

A search was conducted at residential premises of assessee and incriminating material was found in form of unaccounted sales from liquor vends. Assessing Officer passed assessment order making addition on account of same. On appeal, the Tribunal held that ample evidence including partnership deeds of various liquor firms were found in course of search itself regarding undisclosed income of assessee from liquor business carried on by him, thus, it could not be said that assessment of undisclosed income in that regard was outside purview of section 158BC.On appeal the Court held that   during search, statements of number of persons were recorded who stated that they were salesmen working in those vends and assessee was their employer and real owner of vends. It was also noted that documents of rent agreement for premises were taken on record in name of company, which was signed by assessee as a contractor. Since there was cross-examination of almost all persons whose statements were relied upon and after cross-examination nothing contrary to earlier statements emerged, inference could be drawn that undisclosed income was earned by assessee through ghost and benami companies which were running on properties taken on rent by him. therefore, assessment order was found to have been correctly re-assessed by Tribunal. No substantial question of law.  (BP.1-4-1986 to 28th June 1996)