9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of cash of Rs. 30,000, but we are not here concerned with it). On an examination of the seized documents, the ITO on 5th Jan., 1981, passed on order under s. 132(5) of the Act in which he had estimated in a summary manner the assessee's income for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 to 1980-81. Suffice it to say that for the asst. yr. 1978-79, the assessee's income was estimated at Rs. 2,98,422. On the basis of the said order under s. 132(5) the cash of Rs. 30,000 seized was not returned to the assessee. 3. The after the assessment for the asst. yr. 1978-79 was completed under s. 144 of the IT Act, 1961, determining the assessee's income at Rs. 2,98,380. It may thus be seen that the income estimated by the ITO in a summary manner for purposes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as once again reiterated before the ITO that the exercise book did not belong to the assessee and hence the question of treating sum of Rs. 1,20,826 as the assessee's income did not arise. 6. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition for the following reasons: (i) Right from the beginning the assessee's case was that the exercise book in question did not belong to it; (ii) Further, the ITO himself had not treated various items of investment/income reflected in the seized book as the income of the assessee. The ITO had picked up the aggregate credit of Rs. 1,20,826 and added it as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources. This itself would go to show that the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question as the property of the assessee yet at the time of assessment the ITO himself had conceded the point that the trucks did not belong to the assessee and had accordingly not included the income from these trucks in the hands of the assessee. In the circumstances, therefore, the two sums in question, which represented the hire charges received on account of these trucks, could not be treated as the assessee's income. (e) Shri Jethi of M/s Nayak Commercial Corporation—Rs. 12,000 Shri Jethi was an employee of the said firm and had arranged for the sum of Rs. 12,000 temporarily for paying hire charges to various truck owners. This sum did not belong to the assessee. (f) Shri Surjeet Singh—Rs. 3,700 Shri Surjeet Singh, a truck ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions with the firms in which the said Jagdeep Singh was a partner. The ITO did not bring on record any evidence to disprove the said deposition. 11. Shri Batra drew our attention to the fact that all that was done before CIT (A) was to explain the entries found in the exercise book. 12. The next limb of Shri Batra's argument was that even though in the order under s. 132(5) the ITO had taken certain tentative views about the ownership of the two trucks referred to above, at the assessment stage, however, the ITO was satisfied that the trucks did not belong to the assessee. It was, therefore, that the income from the said trucks was not assessed in the hands of the assessee. Shri Batra wondered how, if the exercise book belonged to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been rebutted by the ITO by leading acceptable evidence. 17. On the contrary, even according to the ITO's own showing all the entries contained in the exercise book did not relate to the assessee. As rightly contended by Shri Batra, the exercise book either belonged to the assessee or it did not. If it belonged to the assessee then all the investments/income reflected therein ought to have been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. This has not been done. Thus, for example, the income from two trucks were not brought to charge in the hands of the assessee. 18. It is a matter of record that quite a few of the entries related to firms in which the assessee is a partner. First there is the firm of M/s Kalinga Transport Corporat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee. Nor was any independent enquiries made to connect any of the entries made therein with the assessee. On this ground alone the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the impugned addition. 20. But the CIT (A) went further. He went into the details of the various credits and found that only one out of the seven credits was in the name of the assessee. Even here he found that there was nothing extraordinary or unbelievable in the assessee's having cash of Rs. 31,695. 21. As regards the other credits, the CIT (A) on a close examination of the relevant details came to the conclusion that they did not belong to the assessee. 22. As we see it, the conclusion reached by the CIT(A) cannot be said to be perverse. 23. We may h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
