TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contractors Shri Mangaldas Lalsingh Vaghela and Shri Vasantlal Devilal Sharma. On the scrutiny of the books of account seized during the course of search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, it came to light that the payments made to the abovementioned contractors had not been recorded in the books of the assessee at the relevant time. Shri Wadia explained that the contractors might have received those amounts from some other parties. In this connection, it is found during the course of assessment proceedings that the two contractors worked, only for the assessee and there was no narration in their books to justify the contention of the assessee. The scrutiny of the books of account reveals that on 4-11-1978, 28-11-1978, 27-12-1978, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the voucher was misplaced and hence not shown. The assessee contended that he is maintaining books of account on Samvat year basis and hence the entries should not be considered on financial basis. The contention of the assessee is duly considered. But the same is not entertained because the question of maintenance of books of account cross up when any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year and the assessee offered no explanation about the nature and source thereof or explanation offered by him is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year in view of the provisions of section 68 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot recording the same in the books of account. 10. The learned departmental representative relied upon the order passed by the authorities below and further stated that it is not clear whether the petty cash book was at all produced before the ITO and the cash balance should have been proved by the assessee ? 10A. In reply the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITO had seen the cash book and the addition was made because of non-appreciation of facts and non-convincing of the transactions. 11. In our opinion, the addition made is required to be deleted. The reasons are as follows : Section 69C envisages fiction of unexplained expenditure, etc., not satisfactorily proved. On perusing the accounts of the contractors, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness'. In the result, the figure required to be added will be nil." 12. The stand of the revenue is mainly based on the evidence in respect of the entries found in the books of account of other persons. The payments received and shown to have been received on the dates mentioned by the recipients are treated to have been paid by the assessee exactly on the same date and hence the addition. But one important aspect is forgotten in the process that the assessee in his books has also recorded payments to those recipients though on different dates. What has happened to these payments shown to have been made by the assessee. Does it mean that the payments shown by the assessee were also shown by the recipients on exactly same date mentioned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
