9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. 4. Ground No. 2 was not pressed by the learned Authorised Representative. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 5. Ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal and ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal deal with the addition made on account of entries in diary. 6. Briefly stated, the facts of these grounds are that a survey was conducted under s. 133A on 3rd and 4th Oct., 1996 'at the business premises of M/s Rajasthan Commercial House, in which a diary containing transactions not recorded in the regular books was found. Photocopy of this diary, marked as Annex. 18, was obtained. The partners of the firm submitted that the entries in this diary related to the construction of a boundary wall/room on agricultural land owned by Shri Raj Kumar an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21200 4. 600 6000 The AO was of the opinion that these changes might have been made by the assessee himself for his own advantage and his earlier record also suggested misbehaviour with survey party. He, therefore, concluded that the entries in this diary were not recorded in the regular books of account, the total of which comes to (Rs. 7,60,425 + 42,802) Rs. 8,03,225. This amount was treated as unexplained investment for the year in question. The AO further did not agree with the contention that the transactions and the details contained in the diary related to the construction of boundary wall as there was no mention about the material used and that the signatures of Shri Hakim Beg, Jagdis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and the. matter was brought to the notice of the then Addl. CIT. It was further explained that the diary contained transactions in respect of agricultural land and was written by Shri Pushpendra, the brother of the assessee. The contentions made before the AO were reiterated. It was also argued that the narration in this diary clearly evidenced the purchase of 'Chuna' (lime), labour, advances to Mistry, cost of seeds/fertilizers. It was also stated that the cost pertaining to the impugned assessment year recorded originally in the diary was Rs. 54,861. The learned CIT(A) called for the comments from the AO who vide his letter dt. 4th Feb., 2002 replied that the contention of the assessee for tampering of the diary by the Revenue officials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts, it was concluded that the AO was not justified in making these two additions totalling Rs. 8,75,828 (8,03,228 + 72,600). Considering the entire material on record, the learned CIT(A) concluded that unexplained investment was to be considered in the construction activity at the agricultural land as well as for expenses on agriculture, in relation to which the entries were recorded in the diary. He further noted that the valuer's report gave the figure of Rs. 72,600. He, therefore, held that total expenditure of construction and for agriculture, such as, fertilizer, seeds, etc. be fairly estimated at Rs. 1,40,000. He, therefore, sustained the addition to this level while deleting the two additions made by the AO amounting to Rs. 8,75,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the entries so altered cannot be considered as reliable evidence for determining the quantum of income. The report of the approved valuer indicated investment at Rs. 72,600 in construction. When the other segments of the entries in the diary, being the expenses for agricultural operation, are also considered, in our considered opinion the learned CIT(A) justifiably adopted this figure at Rs. 1,40,000. This amount represents the additions on account of investment in the construction as well as other expenses noted in the diary. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this score. 8. The last effective ground of the assessee's appeal about the charging of interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C, being consequential, is disposed of acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
