1976 (4) TMI 58 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,65,000 as income from undisclosed sources.
2. Addition of Rs. 2,344 as dalali receipts.
3. Addition of Rs. 4,432 as income from undisclosed sources from the sale of old ornaments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 1,65,000 as Income from Undisclosed Sources:

The primary issue revolves around the addition of Rs. 1,65,000 as income from undisclosed sources based on entries in a red diary seized during a search of the assessee's premises. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) deemed this amount as peak credit on 18th January 1972, in the name of Smt. Sarla Devi Agarwal, coincidentally the name of the assessee's wife. The assessee argued that the red diary was fictitious, maintained to impress clients, and not a genuine cash book. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the ITO did not verify the entries with the concerned parties, despite the assessee providing addresses and requesting summons. The AAC concluded that the diary could not be treated as genuine without corroborative material, and the ITO's basis for the peak credit addition was unclear. Consequently, the AAC deleted the addition of Rs. 1,65,000.

2. Addition of Rs. 2,344 as Dalali Receipts:

The ITO also added Rs. 2,344 as dalali receipts based on entries in the red diary. The assessee contended that these entries were fictitious and not indicative of actual income. The AAC agreed, noting that the assessee's income was verifiable from the blue diary and other account books, and the ITO failed to substantiate the genuineness of the red diary entries. Therefore, the AAC deleted the addition of Rs. 2,344.

3. Addition of Rs. 4,432 as Income from Undisclosed Sources from the Sale of Old Ornaments:

The assessee disputed the addition of Rs. 4,432, representing the sale proceeds of old ornaments credited in the cash book on 16th August 1971. The ITO treated this amount as income from undisclosed sources under Section 69, as the assessee could not provide evidence of the acquisition of the ornaments. The AAC upheld this addition, noting that the assessee failed to prove the source of the ornaments. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing the lack of satisfactory evidence regarding the source of acquisition, and sustained the addition of Rs. 4,432 as income from undisclosed sources.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision to delete the additions of Rs. 1,65,000 and Rs. 2,344, agreeing that the red diary entries were not substantiated and could not be treated as genuine. However, it sustained the addition of Rs. 4,432, as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence of the source of the old ornaments. Consequently, both the department's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.