9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pent during the year for building construction. This was admitted by the representative of the assessee. The details of purchase, etc., were not produced before the Assessing Officer. Before the appellate authority, it was pointed out that the bills and other materials were available with the assessee. Admittedly, these are not reflected in the books of account. On the other hand, the representative of the assessee had admitted the spending of Rs. 2,68,986 whereas an amount of Rs. 8,31,225 was shown to have been spent in the books of account. Thus, when there is an admission that a further sum of Rs. 2,68,986 was spent apart from Rs. 8,31,225, then the cost of construction would come to Rs. 11,00,211 and odd. The Tribunal had accepted Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le or are not supported by proper vouchers or the Income-tax Officer is of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on such books of account. It is true that the Income-tax Officer has no option but to rely on the valuation report, which is a document prepared by an expert and is admissible, but there must be a finding by the Income-tax Officer that the books of account maintained by the assessee are defective or are not reliable. There may be a marginal difference in the actual investment and the report of the Valuation Officer for a number of reasons as the valuation report is prepared on the basis of norms prescribed by the C.P.W.D. for the construction of buildings and the difference may be with regard to quality of the materials, etc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eming provision, which applies when the assessee's explanation is rejected. Section 68 does not imply that the books of account are to be rejected in order to hold otherwise than the entries made. On the other hand, it implies addition only when the discrepancies are not explained by the assessee to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The same principle will apply in cases under sections 69 and 69B. The onus of proving the source of a sum of money is on the assessee. If he disputes the liability for tax, it is for him to show that the receipt was not income or that it was exempted from taxation under the law. In the absence of any proof, the Assessing Officer is entitled to charge it as taxable income. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the account books, it can be explained by the assessee, who under section 69 is entitled to an opportunity to explain. If in the opinion of the Assessing Officer the explanation is not satisfactory, the income can be added. The phraseology of section 69 creates a legal fiction. According to counsel for the assessee, in this case there are materials to show that the explanation was satisfactory. Nowhere had the Income-tax Officer recorded his observation that either the books of account are not reliable or that he was not satisfied with the explanation given. Therefore, according to him, the books of account as produced were required to be accepted. We have gone through the orders and found that in fact the Assessing Officer has not reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
