Registered deed recitals and cross-examination rights govern registry-charge additions; estimated non-business expense disallowances and unsupported commission claims were sustained.

A registered sale deed recital that the seller bore registration and stamp charges could not be displaced by an untested statement relied on behind the assessee's back; without cross-examination or conclusive contrary evidence, the addition for alleged undisclosed registry-charge payment was deleted. Disallowances of repair, maintenance and telephone expenses were sustained on a reasonable estimate of possible non-business use where business nexus was not fully established. Commission expenditure was also disallowed because the assessee failed to show the services rendered or any corresponding business necessity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made on account of alleged undisclosed income towards payment of registry charges was justified when the registered sale deed recorded that the seller had borne the registration expenses and the seller's contrary statement was relied upon without cross-examination. (ii) Whether the disallowance of repair and maintenance expenses and telephone expenses on the basis of non-business use was justified. (iii) Whether the disallowance of commission expenditure for want of evidence of services rendered was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made on account of alleged undisclosed income towards payment of registry charges was justified when the registered sale deed recorded that the seller had borne the registration expenses and the seller's contrary statement was relied upon without cross-examination.

Analysis: The registered sale deeds contained a clear recital that the seller had paid the registration and stamp charges. The Assessing Officer relied on the seller's statement recorded behind the assessee's back, without allowing cross-examination, even though the statement was used to contradict the documentary recital. In such a situation, the oral statement had no evidentiary value against the assessee, and the documentary record could not be displaced in the absence of conclusive contrary evidence.

Conclusion: The addition was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of repair and maintenance expenses and telephone expenses on the basis of non-business use was justified.

Analysis: The disallowances were made by a reasonable estimate for possible personal or non-business use of the expenses. Such estimation is permissible where the business nexus is not fully established and the record does not displace the estimate adopted by the lower authority.

Conclusion: The disallowances were upheld against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance of commission expenditure for want of evidence of services rendered was justified.

Analysis: The assessee failed to explain the nature of services for which the commission was claimed to have been paid and did not produce evidence showing that any corresponding work was actually done. In the absence of proof of business necessity or services rendered, the expenditure could not be allowed.

Conclusion: The disallowance was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the issue of the registry-charge addition, while the remaining expense disallowances were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered document containing a clear recital cannot be displaced by an untested oral statement used behind the assessee's back, and a statement relied upon against an assessee must ordinarily be tested by cross-examination before it can be used to make an addition.

---