9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 53,979 on account of draft duly entered into books of account. The same has been wrongly upheld as unaccounted investment. 2. That the draft of Rs. 62,193 alleged to have been purchased on 10th Feb., 1988, was not purchased by the assessee and the addition has been made without any lawful basis. 3. That the facts and circumstances of the case and explanation given has not been properly considered and judicially appreciated. The addition of Rs. 62,193 was made without any evidence on record and the same was wrongly upheld. In any case the appellant was not confronted with any material on record in respect of that addition." 3. The relevant facts of the issues involved in brief are that the AO during the assessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestment in the purchase of draft. 4. In the first appeal before the learned CIT(A), the same arguments were reiterated and reliance was also placed on the decision of the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the case of the Sheonath Rai Nanak Chand's (1974) 36 Taxation (6) 60 and the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Shivcharan Dass vs. CIT (1980) 18 CTR (P H) 86. The learned CIT(A) did not accept the plea that the entry could not be made on the date of purchase due to clerical error and also observed that the books of accounts were the primary documents and the entries made therein could not be ignored and the benefit could not be given to the assessee, regarding purchase of draft without there being any rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that sufficient cash was available with the assessee on both the dates i.e., date of purchase of the draft and date when the draft was entered in the books of account. It was further stated that the books maintained by the assessee were accepted by the AO and no other discrepancy was pointed out. So there was no justification in making the addition of Rs. 53,979. Regarding purchase of draft of Rs. 62,193 on 10th Feb., 1988, it was submitted that the assessee did not purchase the draft on that date and the material on record was not confronted to the assessee as the books of account were impounded by the Department so, there was no justification in making the addition without confronting the particulars to the assessee. The lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew that the impugned addition deserves to be deleted. Sec. 69 reads as under: '69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books of accounts, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the AO satisfactorily, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year.' In the instant case, it is apparent from the records that the assessee had purchased a bank draft of Rs. 60,000 on 28th Aug., 1989, which was entered in the books of account on 31st Aug., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62,193 made by the AO is concerned, it is noticed that the assessee sought time to explain the matter on 19th Jan., 1993 and the AO framed assessment on 22nd Jan., 1993. It appears that proper opportunity was not afforded to explain its case. It is also noticed that the learned CIT(A) while confirming the addition had not considered this aspect. In view of that matter, we are of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition on the basis of peak. So we are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to readjudicate afresh the issue relating to the purchase of draft on 10th Feb., 1988 amounting to Rs. 62,193. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the draft. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 61,171 (wrongly mentioned in the ground of appeal as well as in the order of the CIT(A) at Rs. 62,171) was made. 9.2. In the first appeal, before the learned CIT(A), the same arguments were reiterated. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the basis of his order vide Appeal No. CIT(A)/IT/BTI/506/1992-93 for the preceding asst. yr. 1988-89. It is noticed that the similar issue was involved in the preceding assessment year which we have discussed in ITA No. 924/Asr/1993 in the preceding paras of this consolidated order and the facts are identical, even the rival contentions were similar. In the similar circumstances, we have already deleted the addition of Rs. 53,979 in the preceding assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
