Held that the assessee in the statement furnished under section 132(4) of the Act, had categorically stated that the documents found during the search proceedings represented the undisclosed transaction of the firm, MK and based on that undisclosed income of the firm was determined. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had taken one of the possible views for holding that undisclosed cash represented the application of undisclosed income determined in the hands of the firm. Hence, there was no reason to interfere in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).(AY.2011-12)
ITO v. Pravinbhai Jayantibhai Kapasi (2023)108 ITR 457 (Ahd) (Trib)
S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Search and seizure-Assessment-Cash found on search-Assessing Officer accepting the explanation-Not mistake apparent from the record.[S.69A, 132, 132(4), 153C]