9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the assessee who is carrying on financial services was completed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3). The assessment years were 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The reliance placed was mainly on the entries made in a note-book recovered at the time of search as also the sworn statement under Section 132(4) of the Act. Additions were made with respect to a Chit carried on by the assessee, the rental income, loans availed by the assessee, i. e. , and those availed from individuals as also from financial institutions. The assessee contended that the figures as disclosed in the note-book has different multipliers. With respect to the Chit, it was claimed that the multiplier applied could only be '100' and for rental i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re admitted to be undisclosed income surreptitiously recorded and the admissions made in the sworn statement, ought not the Tribunal have held that there need be no further corroborative material to be unearthed by the Assessing Officer? (iii) Considering the evidence recovered as also the admissions made under Section 132(4), ought not the Tribunal have held that the onus shifts to the assessee to prove the multiplier as applied to the different figures and are not the findings of the Tribunal perverse on the facts and circumstances of the case? 4. The materials recovered in the search being the note-book in which the entries were made is produced as Annexure-C in the appeals, at pages (2) and (3). There are figures evident from pages ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubscribers confirmed the multiplier to be '100', the same has to be applied with respect to the amount shown against 'DRAW'. 7. We see from the figures as revealed from the note-book that the total amount payable is shown as "290/50", which, by the figures as against the institution shown, even according to the assessee is the multiplier of '100000'. The Assessing Officer also found that the total payable would be Rs. 2, 90, 50, 000/-, including the unit values of 'Bhaghyalakshmi' draw. However, the Assessing Officer adopted '1000' as the multiplier for the draw. This is not supported by any evidence unearthed, The Draw is a distinguishable item and the assessee's version has to be accepted espec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter head of Assam Kerala Roadways, a transport company whose proprietor is one Mohandas. This clearly disproves the contention of the assessee that the multiplier to be applied is only '10000' and not '100000'. The assessee on being confronted with this, had produced a letter from one Mohandas claiming that a loan of Rs. 20, 000/- was availed on 18. 06. 2005 and a sum of Rs. 18, 000/- was returned on the very next day, on 19. 06. 2005. However, there is nothing to indicate the refund and the figure entered was on 01. 08. 2005. 9. Further, as against advance to Kapil, the specific statement of the assessee under Section 132(4) was that he had given a loan of Rs. 20, 00, 000/- to one Nagpal Builders. The figure shown in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
