TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee admitted in his statement recorded under section 131 that he is advancing cash loans. The assessee has also admitted in answer to question No. 2, when pointed out certain entries in the personal memorandum diaries relating to 1992 and earlier period, that these entries are written in the coded language. Regarding one amount of ₹ 2,000 written against one Ramakant Kadam on entry No. 4182 in Annexure A-7, the assessee admitted that this amount really represented a sum of ₹ 2 lakhs paid to Shri Ramakant Kadam. 2. The search and seizure action under section 132 was conducted in the business and residential premises of the assessee on 15/16th July, 1996. As a result of search, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the block period 1-4-1986 to 15-7-1996. During the course of search, cash of ₹ 1,25,000 was seized apart from seizure of jewellery to the extent of ₹ 1,07,703 (out of jewellery worth ₹ 3,45,092 found at the Vile Parle residence of the assessee) and seizure of shares and debentures etc. worth ₹ 39,29,432 out of such assets found at ₹ 41,58,230. Durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d etc. The Assessing Officer has mentioned that it is not understood why the assessee voluntarily reduced the agreed price by ₹ 8.50 lakhs. The Assessing Officer has stated that the only reasonable explanation appeared to be that the assessee had received the difference in cash. The assessee had argued before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT that the land was never in his possession nor the possession was given to M/s. Vishal Developers. The assessee had also produced 7/12 extract and a letter dated 30-7-1997 from M/s. Vishal Developers showing that M/s. Vishal Developers do not have any physical possession of the plot due to non-availability of the right of way. However, the assessee agreed that he is having Power of Attorney for sale of this plot. The Assessing Officer has stated that by virtue of the Power of Attorney the assessee became owner and in view of the agreement mentioned above, the assessee sold the plot of land for ₹ 31.11 lakhs to M/s. Vishal Developers. The Assessing Officer pointed out that this transaction is not declared by the assessee in his return of income. The Assessing Officer has pointed out that the assessee had received ₹ 3,11, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Collector. 6.1 The learned Counsel further stated that no addition could be made on presumptions. Reliance was placed on the following decisions : - (i)St. Teresa';s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala (1970) 76 ITR 365 (Ker.), (ii)K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC), (iii)Umacharan Shaw Bros. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271(SC), (iv)Patel Rajeshkumar Kantilal Co. v. CIT (1998) 62 TTJ (Ahd.) 189. 6.2 The learned Counsel further stated that the apparent state of affairs is to be treated as real unless contrary is proved and no addition can be made on presumption: - (i)Kalwa Devadattam v. Union of India (1963) 49 ITR 165(SC), (ii)CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC), (iii)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349(SC). 6.3 The learned Counsel further contended that no addition could be made on the basis of rough sheets/loose papers. In this regard, reliance was placed on the following decisions: - (i)Ashwani Kumar v. ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183(Delhi), (ii)Kishanchand Sobhrajmal v. Asstt. CIT (1992) 41 ITD 97(Jp.), (iii)Kantilal Bros. v. Asstt. CIT (1995) 52 ITD 412(Pune), (iv)Shri Ram Bhagwandas Raheja v. ACIT, IT (S S) A No. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder and the balance amount of ₹ 23 lakhs was still due and payable to the assessee. To the assessee';s argument that no addition could be made on presumptions, the learned Departmental Representative pointed out that there is no presumption and the addition is based on the documents found during search. To the argument of the learned Counsel of the assessee that no addition can be made on the basis of rough sheets or loose papers, the learned Departmental Representative contended that the relevant papers are not rough sheets or loose papers, but they are duly signed documents. To the assessee';s argument that presumption under section 132(4A) is available only for the limited purpose of section 132(5) and 132(11), the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad Bench ';B'; Third Member in the case of Smt. Kesari Bai v. ITO (1990) 32 ITD 1 (TM) (SB) and the decision of Jaipur Bench of the ITAT in the case of R.N. Ghiya v. Asstt. CIT (1995) 54 ITD 269and contended that section 132(4A) raises a presumption, though rebuttable, that the available article or thing found during the course of search in the possession or control ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and to the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that in this case though the property under consideration was in dispute, yet as the assessee was having a Power of Attorney he could be treated as owner in view of the extended meaning of owner contemplated by the provisions of section 2(47). However, as the Capital Gains of ₹ 23 lakhs are proposed to be taxed on accrual basis, it is important to see whether there was a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47). Even before the Assessing Officer the assessee had taken the stand that M/s. Vishal Developers do not have any physical possession over the plot of land due to the non-availability of the right of way. In this regard a letter dated 29th July, 1997 (wrongly mentioned as dated 30-7-1997 by the Assessing Officer) from M/s. Vishal Developers was produced before the Assessing Officer along with 7/12 extract. The Assessing Officer has not proved that the transferee had taken possession of the property or otherwise became the owner of the property. On the other hand, looking to the evidence produced before the Assessing Officer, the learned Counsel of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. 4. Even assuming for the sake of argument that any sum could be part of an assessment under section 158BC as a result of dealings with Mr. S.R. Dantal, the Assessing Officer erred in including the following in the figure of ₹ 78,34,000 - (i)Some amount allegedly being interest. (ii)An amount in excess of ₹ 20,00,000. (5) The Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that there was no material in support of the case that an amount of ₹ 78,34,000 was the undisclosed income of the appellant and in fact all the available material was to the contrary. 11. The Assessing Officer has made addition of ₹ 78,34,000 on the ground that the source of the capital for financing the loans advanced by the assessee could not be explained and hence full amount of capital along with the interest amounting to ₹ 78,34,000 was added as assessee';s income from undisclosed sources. The relevant seized papers on which the addition is based, are page Nos. 104, 105 and 106 of Annexure A-1 (available at Exhibit-II to the assessment order). The relevant extracts from the Assessing Officer';s order are reproduced as under : - From the seized mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atel filed an affidavit dated 17th July, 1997 showing a loan of ₹ 30,000 was given to Mr. S.R. Dantal. This affidavit is also signed by Notary Mr. V.N. Konkar. The reply given by assessee is not satisfactory because the Indemnity-cum-Declaration is on stamp paper worth ₹ 100 signed by Advocate on 20-11-1993 i.e. after the part transaction took place. Hence validity of such document can not be treated as null and void or as transaction not taken place. Further, as mentioned in the declaration the agreements of flats are also found where receipt value is near to the balance amount as mentioned in the Indemnity Bond. Hence the assessee';s explanation is not accepted. In the note-book A/8 the calculation for this deal is made with interest in the coded form. Same is decoded as under : 10000/00 25-2-1993 10,00,000 25-2-1993 5000/00 10-10-1993 5,00,000 10-10-1993 5000/00 1-12-1993 5,00,000 1-11-1993 Further on page 67 for calculation of interest a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /1 you have stated that this is a proposal and it is not finalised. The details of the agreement are as under : Dt. of Agreement Vendor';s name Name of purchaser Agreement value in lakhs Receipt value in lakhs 1. 11-6-1994 Kamla S. Dantal - 2.60 0.40 2. 27-5-1995 S.R. Dantal J.B. Patel 10.00 5.00 3. 27-5-1995 S.R. Dantal P.R. Patel 10.00 5.00 4. 27-5-1995 S.R. Dantal P.R. Patel 10.00 5.00 5. 24-4-1994 S.R. Dantal - 4.48 2.24 6. 24-4-1994 S.R. Dantal - 4.48 2.24 7. 24-4-1994 S.R. Dantal - 4.48 2.24 There i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... project of Village Mogra, Andheri (East) Bombay on plot bearing S. No. 12, Hissa No. 2(PT) C.T.S. No. 250 (Part). The learned Departmental Representative invited our attention to page 3378 of the commentary of Chaturvedi and Pithisaria wherein it has been stated that the Mehta Parikh Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181(SC) cannot be construed to lay down the proposition that unless the deponent is cross-examined, the affidavit cannot be rejected. The learned Departmental Representative also invited our attention to the copies of MOUs available at Exhibit-II to the assessment order. Towards the end of each M.O.U. there is a receipt duly signed by Shri S.R. Dantal wherein the amount received is mentioned along with the date of receipt but the name from whom the amount is received is left blank. The learned Departmental Representative also invited our attention to page 369 of the Paper Book wherein the assessee had given vague reply to the question No. 13 put to him. The relevant extracts from the assessee';s statement are reproduced as under : - Q. 13 :If you have not taken any finance from Mr. P.R. Patel, then why original document where receipt of ₹ 20 lakhs as discussed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we are of the opinion that the assessee or Shri S.R. Dantal cannot go back on the same. It is further found that the figures and dates mentioned in the Indemnity-cum-Declaration (supra) tally with the seized paper where in respect of the figures of ₹ 10 lakhs, ₹ 5 lakhs and ₹ 5 lakhs dates are the same and the figures are recorded in a coded language. The figure of ₹ 10,00,000 mentioned against the date 25-2-1993 in the seized paper (copy of which is available at page 360 of the assessee';s Paper Book) seems to correspond to the figure of ₹ 10 lakhs mentioned against the same date i.e. 25-2-1993 in the Indemnity-cum-Declaration. Similarly, the figure of ₹ 5 lakhs against the date 10-10-1993 corresponds to figure of ₹ 5,00,000 against the same date in the seized paper. The third amount of ₹ 5 lakhs received by Shri S.R. Dantal on 1-11-1993 (as per Indemnity-cum-Declaration) corresponds to figure of ₹ 5,00,000 mentioned against the date 1-11-1993 in the seized paper (copy available at page 360 of the assessee';s Paper Book). Thus, the learned Departmental Representative';s contention that it is proved that the figure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 20 lakhs and ₹ 22,12,000 made by him to Shri S.R. Dantal. To the questions put to him in this regard, the assessee has only given vague and evasive replies. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the total amount of ₹ 42,12,000 (i.e. ₹ 20 lakhs + ₹ 22.12 lakhs) out of the total addition of ₹ 78.34 lakhs made by the assessee has to be treated as the assessee';s income from undisclosed sources. The seized paper, page 67 of Annexure A-8 (copy available at page 361 of assessee';s Paper Book) gives the calculation of interest on some amounts. It does not establish that such interest was actually received by the assessee. Therefore, we hold that making of addition of ₹ 78.34 lakhs on the basis of this paper will not be fair. We, therefore, restrict the addition to ₹ 42.12 lakhs. The assessee';s argument that no addition could be made on the basis of loose papers does not hold good as the addition is based upon the Indemnity-cum-Declaration and Memorandums of Understanding for allotment of flats, which are duly signed by Shri S.R. Dantal. The Indemnity-cum-Declaration is also addressed to the assessee. Therefore, the seized do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 was undisclosed income of the appellant for the block period and erred in including the same in his assessment order under section 158BC of the Act. 18. The addition of ₹ 11,24,000 comprising of three amounts of ₹ 3,21,000, ₹ 4,44,000 and ₹ 3,59,000, is based upon the seized papers marked as 84A and 84B of Annexure A-3, copy of which is available at Exhibit-III to the assessment order as well as at pages 373 to 389 of assessee';s Paper Book. Three agreements were found from the premises of the assessee pertaining to the sale of flats by Shree Ganesh Developers. Shri S.R. Dantal is one of the partners of Shreeganesh Developers. In the said agreements, the name of the flat purchaser is left blank. At pages 3 and 5 of the agreements, Shreeganesh Developers acknowledged the receipt of the amounts of ₹ 3,21,000, ₹ 4,44,000 and ₹ 3,59,000 for flat Nos. B-23, A-22 and A-19 respectively. The receipt at page 5 of the agreement for flat No. B-23 is reproduced as under : Received the day and year first hereinabove written of and from the within named Flat Purchaser a sum of ₹ 3,21,000 (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty One Thousand only) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition has been made on the evidence found during the course of search and not on the basis of presumptions. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the decision of ITAT, Pune Bench reported at Parakh Foods Ltd.';s case (supra). He further stated that presumption under section 132(4A) may not be applicable for regular assessment, but it is definitely applicable for block assessment. The learned Departmental Representative further contended that no statute bars the Assessing Officer to utilise the evidence found during the course of search. It is stated that the only condition is that the assessee should be given an opportunity of hearing before the evidence is used against him. It was stated that in the present case the assessee was duly confronted by the Assessing Officer with the seized documents before drawing the inference from the entries made in such documents. Our attention was also invited to section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act under which the source and mode of acquisition of incriminating evidence may give rise to some presumption against the assessee. Reliance was placed by the learned Departmental Representative on the decision of Pune Bench of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merit in the assessee';s appeal on this issue. The arguments that no addition can be made on presumption or on the basis of loose/rough papers are not relevant as the addition is neither made on presumption nor on the basis of loose papers or rough papers. The addition is based upon the documents found during the course of search, which are in the nature of agreements of allotment of flats and are duly signed by Shri S.R. Dantal on behalf of Shreeganesh Developers. The payments of the amount in question are duly acknowledged and the receipts in token of having received the amount in cash are duly given which were found from the premises of the assessee. The argument that presumption under section 132(4A) is not applicable to block assessment is of no consequence as the presumption could be raised under the provisions of section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act. When a presumption could be raised under the provisions of any other law and the application of the provisions of such other law is not expressly prohibited by any statute including the statute under which the assessee is being proceeded against, such presumption cannot be termed as having been raised under section 132(4A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itigation. The learned counsel further stated that when the document is not in assessee';s handwriting, no addition could be made on the basis of the same. It is further stated that no addition could be made on the basis of loose papers and in this regard reliance is placed upon the Hon';ble Supreme Court';s decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410. 25. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, stated that the seized paper though not signed by anybody bears the assessee';s name and also indicates the period (i.e., upto 31-3-1993) upto which the profit is shown. It is argued by the learned Departmental Representative that even if the assessee has no property at Vasai, he could very well be involved in any other business not disclosed to the department. To the argument of the learned counsel of the assessee that the assessee has 30% of the share as per Partnership Deed and not 50%, it was argued by the learned Departmental Representative that the profit sharing ratio shown in the partnership deed does not apply to the income hidden from the knowledge of the department. It is further contended by the learned Departmental Repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, which is marked as page 206 of Annexure A-4. A copy of this seized paper is available at Exhibit-VI to the assessment order. This is a rough sheet giving the working of the rent. On the basis of this sheet, the Assessing Officer has considered the same as rent received and has taxed the same. 29. The learned counsel of the assessee stated that the copy of the seized paper is available at pages 400 and 401 of the Paper Book and it is stated that it is only the working of some proposed project. The following written arguments have been given by the learned counsel of the assessee with regard to this addition : (a)The assessee is a partner in firms which carry on construction activities and are builders. Many people consult the assessee as to their proposals. (b)In this connection, various proposals are considered before a project is undertaken. The sheet found seems to represent a rough working of the rent payable to accommodate the tenants of a tenanted building if the said building were to be brought down and a new one to be constructed thereon. The working was to find out the additional cost to be incurred in the intermediate period to be borne for such property. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33. The addition of ₹ 4,49,652 is based upon the seized paper marked as page 207 of Annexure A-4. Copies of the seized papers are available at Exhibit-VII to the assessment order. In the assessee';s Paper Book, the copy of these seized papers are available at pages 402 and 404 and the English translation are available at pages 403 and 405 respectively. These were the loose papers wherein the calculation of interest has been made under the heads Rasdhara-Sombhai and Rasdhara respectively. The Assessing Officer has considered the same as the income of the assessee and added to the total income. 34. The learned Counsel of the assessee contended that the loose sheets are not in the handwriting of the assessee and it was further argued that even if the addition has to be made on this account, the same has to be of the amount mentioned in the loose sheets and the said amount cannot be multiplied by 100. Reliance was placed on the same decisions which have been relied upon for the preceding grounds of appeal. 35. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the decision of Jaipur Bench of ITAT in R.N. Ghiya';s case (supra) to counter the argument of the Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in holding that an amount of ₹ 28,23,408 allegedly being share of interest was undisclosed income of the appellant for the block period and erred in including the same in the assessment order under section 158BC of the Act. 38. The addition of ₹ 28,23,408 as discussed by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 16 of her order, relates to the seized papers, copy of which is available at page 406 of the Paper Book and at Exhibit-VIII to the assessment order. The amount consists of two figures, namely, ₹ 25,68,564 shown against PRP B and amount or ₹ 254844 shown against PRP A . PRP here means Shri P.R. Patel, who is the assessee. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel of the assessee that many figures mentioned in the seized paper (which appears to be a sort of Balance Sheet) tally with the declared Balance Sheet as on 31-3-1993 of M/s. Gem Builders. It was stated that these are the capital accounts of the partners, though the two amounts mentioned against the assessee in the seized paper aggregate to ₹ 28,23,408 (i.e. ₹ 25,68,564 + ₹ 2,54,844) yet in the declared balance sheet of M/s. Gem Builders on 31-3-1993 the amount shown is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment order under section 158BC of the Act. 41. The addition of ₹ 56,256 is based upon seized paper marked as page 30 of Annexure A-2, copy of which is available at page 413 of the Paper Book as well as at Exhibit-IX to the assessment order. The English translation of the seized paper is available at page 414 of the Paper Book. The Assessing Officer has pointed out that the seized paper shows that the assessee has advanced ₹ 2 lakhs on 14-6-1990 to somebody and had received back a sum of ₹ 93,117 on 14-8-1990, ₹ 76,296 on 26-10-1990 and ₹ 33,262 on 31-10-1990 aggregating to ₹ 2,02,675. The figures and the dates have been taken by the Assessing Officer from the seized paper itself. Thus, the principal is received back along with the interest of ₹ 2,675. Some balance amount was left on which interest has been worked out on various dates, namely, 1-11-1990, 1-11-1991, 1-11-1992, 1-11-1993, 1-11-1994 and 1-11-1995. The working shows that the assessee was charging compound interest and interest chargeable as on 1-1-1995 is shown at ₹ 53,581. Thus, the total interest charged by the assessee works out to ₹ 56,256. This has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s based upon the seized paper marked page 40 of Annexure A-4, copy of which is available at page 415 of the Paper Book as well as Exhibit-X to the assessment order. The Assessing Officer has stated in the assessment order that the assessee was confronted with this seized Paper, but he was not able to throw any light in respect of the amount shown against his name. The learned Counsel of the assessee contended that the assessee did not remember what this paper was about. In view of this the amount in question was treated as assessee';s income from undisclosed sources by the Assessing Officer and added as such to the total income. The ld. D.R. relied upon Assessing Officer';s order. 46. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case. In the seized paper, the amount is shown under the head ';Summary'; and the names of the other persons also appear along with the amounts. The seized paper does not show from where the amount has come, whether the assessee had paid this amount or has received this amount. It is also not known whether the amount represents cash or stock-in-trade. Therefore this appears to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pertain to the assessee and his business and we are of the opinion that when confronted with the seized paper, the assessee cannot get away by giving evasive replies. Even if the seized paper is not in assessee';s handwriting, but it is a fact that the same has been found from the custody of the assessee and the onus is on the assessee to prove that it does not belong to him. The normal presumption is that loan transactions indicated in the seized paper pertain to the assessee. We, therefore, uphold the addition of ₹ 25,000. 52. Ground No. 15 reads as under : - 15. The Assessing Officer erred in holding that an amount of ₹ 16,75,252 was undisclosed capital and interest income of the appellant for the block period and erred in including the same in the order under section 158BC of the Act. 53. The addition is based upon seized papers marked as page 169 of Annexure A-4, copies of which are available at pages 418 and 420 of the Paper Book and the English translation is available at pages 419 and 421 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee. These papers are also available at Exhibit-XII to the assessment order. The Assessing Officer has made the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has also admitted in the statement that he has been making entries in the coded language. Regarding front page of the seized paper (418 of the Paper Book), the argument of the learned Counsel of the assessee is that it is a copy of account of a party of M/s. Gem Builders, where TDS has also been deducted, hence no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. However, in respect of the entries made on the reverse page the learned Counsel of the assessee was unable to say anything except saying that amount recorded as ₹ 6,029.88 should be read as such. There is no indication on the seized paper (available at page 418 of the Paper Book) that it is the copy of account of a party of Gem Builders. No material has been produced before us to prove this contention. No evidence has also been produced that tax has been deducted at source, by M/s. Gem Builders as claimed. We, therefore, uphold the addition of ₹ 16,75,252 made by the Assessing Officer. The decisions relied upon by the assessee';s Counsel are the same in respect of the grounds of appeal relating to loose papers and our finding is also the same that the facts are distinguishable. 57. Ground No. 16 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that the same could be not included in the computation at all. 61. The observations of the Assessing Officer in paragraph 3 of the assessment order are reproduced as under : - 3. In the above return, the assessee has disclosed a total income of ₹ 2,36,770 for assessment year 1994-95, ₹ 16,38,670 for assessment year 1995-96 and ₹ 21,01,186 for assessment year 1996-97. However, from the details filed, it is seen that the assessee has filed his returns regularly only upto assessment year 1993-94. The returns for assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 1996-97 were filed by the assessee only on 5-6-1997. Even though the return for assessment year 1996-97 could not have been filed before the search and seizure action on 15-7-1996. The assessee should have filed returns for assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 within time allowable under section 139(1). Due to failure of the assessee to comply with the above provisions, the income returned by the assessee in the returns for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 are treated as undisclosed income and clubbed for computation for the block assessment. 62. The learned Counsel of the assessee has contended that the reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot applicable. 64. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and to the facts and circumstances of the case. In one of the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel, namely, Salvi Divashnka Shankar v. ACIT, the matter pertained to a salaried assessee, whose employer had filed return under section 206 showing the details of income and tax deducted at source. This was treated as income disclosed to the Department. However, in the present case, the assessee has paid advance tax, the entries of which are recorded in the regular books of account and the advance tax and TDS payments are also reflected in the returns of income filed. It is seen that TDS of ₹ 4,477 is paid for assessment year 1995-96 on the dividend income of ₹ 34,594 and advance tax of ₹ 1,87,000 is paid for assessment year 1995-96. For the assessment year 1994-95, no advance tax is paid, but TDS of ₹ 3,779 is paid on dividend income of ₹ 21,359 and of ₹ 542 on interest income of ₹ 4,852. 64.1 We are of the opinion that the returns of income for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 were filed on 6-5-1997, which is beyond the period prescribed under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the income accrues and once again when the same is spent. Hence, the appellant prays that the addition on account of source or on account of application be deleted. 70. The learned Counsel of the assessee contended that making additions for both source of income as well as for the application of the said income would amount to double taxation and hence it will not be fair and reasonable. In this regard, our attention was invited by the learned Counsel to Paper Book No. 2 filed by him where a statement showing additions made on account of source of funds as well as application of income, is given. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative contended that such issues were not raised before the Assessing Officer and moreover the set off cannot be given unless the assessee establishes nexus of the amount spent with the undisclosed income earned. 71. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the opinion that there is some force in the arguments of the learned Counsel that making of addition on the basis of source of funds as well as application of funds will amount to double addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
