1999 (3) TMI 113 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Unexplained credits in Receipts and Payments Account
2. Unexplained credit balance in the name of M/s. PBL Transport Corporation
3. Cash deficit as on 1-8-1991
4. Unaccounted cash payments
5. Unverifiable labour charges
6. Difference in the construction of warehouse

Summary of Judgment:

1. Unexplained credits in Receipts and Payments Account Rs. 14,20,000:
The assessing officer found unexplained cash receipts of Rs. 14,20,000 during the survey at Udaipur Branch Office. Initially, the Managing Director of the assessee-company admitted these amounts as undisclosed income. Later, the assessee-company claimed these were share application monies, providing confirmation letters. The Tribunal confirmed the addition as undisclosed income, stating the later explanation was an afterthought without substantial evidence.

2. Unexplained credit balance in the name of M/s. PBL Transport Corporation Rs. 95,547:
The assessee-company did not raise any specific ground against this addition. Therefore, the Tribunal did not consider this issue in the order.

3. Cash deficit as on 1-8-1991 Rs. 5,47,107:
The assessing officer found a peak deficit cash balance of Rs. 5,47,107 due to unaccounted cash payments. The assessee's explanation that vouchers were prepared at the site and payments made later was not substantiated. The Tribunal confirmed the addition as undisclosed income.

4. Unaccounted cash payments Rs. 75,000:
A seized document showed an unaccounted cash payment of Rs. 75,000 to M/s. Amya Sales Co., Calcutta. The source was not explained. The Tribunal confirmed this as undisclosed income.

5. Unverifiable labour charges Rs. 19,38,846:
The assessing officer treated outstanding labour charges as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanations satisfactory and noted that the liability had been disclosed in balance sheets filed with returns. The Tribunal deleted this amount from the computation of undisclosed income, stating it did not constitute non-disclosure.

6. Difference in the construction of warehouse Rs. 27,92,842:
The assessing officer determined a difference in the cost of construction of a warehouse based on a valuation report. The Tribunal deleted this addition, stating that the factum of construction and its cost had already been disclosed to the department before the search, thus not qualifying as undisclosed income.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal deleted the additions related to outstanding labour payments and differential cost of construction, while confirming all other items of undisclosed income. The assessing officer was directed to modify the block assessment accordingly. The appeal was allowed in part.