9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actorily explain. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee Sh. D.K.Gupta submitted that the main paper which is termed as document No.43 by the revenue is a small piece of paper which bears names of Kanahiya Lal Om Parkash and Chanan Ram Barkat Ram and under each of the two names date of 26th April, 1971 with an amount of Rs. 10,000 is mentioned. He produced the photostat copy of the said paper for our perusal. He submitted that the said paper and other two papers marked as document Nos.45 and 56 which certain figures are mentioned which are detailed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue could not substantiate in any possible way that the said entries pertained to the assessee and were such which were intentionally kept outside the bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal representative the addition of Rs. 20,000 was in order and placing his reliance on the orders of the two lower authorities he made his best efforts to persuade us to confirm the same. 4. After taking into consideration the rival submissions and careful perusal of facts on record and the photostat copies of the documents found in the course of search and seizure, we are unable to confirm the action of the Commissioner (Appeals). From perusal of chit on which following writing is available: "Kanhiya Lal Om Parkash 26th April, 1971 Rs. 10,000 Chanan Ram Barkat Ram 26th April, 1971 Rs. 10,000". It is clear that the above said writing neither indicates that the said amounts were loan or advances by the assessee nor if the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made by the assessee. But when we go to adjudicate the issue whether an addition on that basis and that too of Rs. 20,000 can be made and sustained, we are afraid we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Depatmental representative and reverse the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is not that for the said papers which were termed as 'documents' by the Revenue, the assessee did not come forward with any explanation and it even offered that the same may be verified by the ITO by summoning the parties. In the absence of explanation which was summarily rejected by the ITO, the parties were not called or summoned for the purpose of verification, as per alternative submission of the assessee. The burden of the assessee fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
