9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee's contention that the multiplier was '100' is more probable, which also stands supported by the confirmations from the various subscribers. Assessing Officer having not obtained any other material to prove that the multiplier is '1000', the adoption of such multiplier can only be said to be a mere surmise or conjecture. We also notice that the figure shown against Draw is clearly distinguishable and a separate multiplier is also possible of easy identification. We, hence, uphold the order of the Tribunal to that extent. Now we are concerned with the multiplier contended of '10000' for individual loans and '100000' against institutional loans we notice that in the course of search the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. SREEDHARAN (SR. ), SRI. V. P. NARAYANAN, SMT. BOBY M. SEKHAR AND SMT. NISHA JOHN JUDGMENT [ ITA 68/2012, ITA . 79/2012, ITA . 74/2012, ITA . 78/2012 ] Vinod Chandran, J . Pursuant to search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity IT Act ] conducted on 28. 07. 2007 as also recoveries made, the assessment with respect 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stions of law arising in the appeals are re-framed by us as follows: (i) In the facts and circumstances of the case as also the figures seen from the note-book recovered without distinguishable marks and the sworn statement of the assessee, ought not the Tribunal have confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer? (ii) In the context of the evidence recovered by way of the note-book with figures, which were 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( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , indicating 57 monthly draws having already been carried out. Assessing Officer refused to accept the plea of the assessee that the figure shown as against DRAW has to be multiplied with '100'. The assessee had produced certain confirmations from the subscribers indicating that the multiplier is only '100'. However, one or two subscribers did not give a clear picture. The Tribunal found that since the majority of the subscribers 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hable from the institutional amounts but for the fact that the statement under Section 132(4) was contrary to such a different multiplier being applied for all such individual amounts. We notice from the order of the Assessing Officer that as against one Mohandas, the figure shown is '. 2' and claim was that the multiplier is '10000' indicating a loan of ₹ 2, 000/-. However, there is a clear receipt of ₹ 20, 000/- under the letter 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 lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
