1991 (8) TMI 142 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, reduces departmental additions

ASHWANI KUMAR. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER.

The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal and partially allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting or reducing various additions made by the Assessing ... - Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 1,86,330 as unexplained cash.2. Addition of Rs. 38,791 on account of jewellery.3. Addition of Rs. 31,668 and Rs. 8,53,618 based on a slip found in the assessee's shop.4. Addition of Rs. 2 lacs due to discrepancies in cement stock and sales.5. Addition of Rs. 3 lacs based on a slip found at the residence of the assessee's father.Summary:1. Addition of Rs. 1,86,330 as unexplained cash:The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the entire amount of Rs. 1,86,330 as unexplained and added it to the assessee's income due to inconsistencies in the assessee's statements. The CIT(A) deleted this amount, holding it taxable u/s 69-A in the assessment year 1984-85. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation was satisfactorily supported by the cash book and sale vouchers, thus deleting the addition and holding that the source of the amount was explained as cash-in-hand of Delhi Cement Co.2. Addition of Rs. 38,791 on account of jewellery:The AO rejected the assessee's explanation regarding the jewellery, adding it to the income. The CIT(A) set aside this addition and directed the AO to re-investigate, including examining Sikander Lal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction, emphasizing the need to verify the correctness of the assessee's retracted statement and the affidavit of Sikander Lal.3. Addition of Rs. 31,668 and Rs. 8,53,618 based on a slip found in the assessee's shop:The AO added Rs. 21,340 and Rs. 8,53,618 based on a slip found during the search, presuming the contents to be true u/s 132(4A). The CIT(A) enhanced the addition to Rs. 31,668. The Tribunal rejected the additions, stating that the slip was a 'dumb document' without any narration of the figures, making it impermissible to presume the figures as the assessee's income without supporting evidence.4. Addition of Rs. 2 lacs due to discrepancies in cement stock and sales:The AO added Rs. 2 lacs based on discrepancies in the chemical analysis of cement samples and a shortage of 57 bags. The Tribunal found that the chemical analysis did not indicate adulteration and accepted the assessee's explanation for the shortage. However, it upheld an addition of Rs. 16,518 based on an unaccounted bill, reducing the original addition.5. Addition of Rs. 3 lacs based on a slip found at the residence of the assessee's father:The AO added Rs. 3 lacs based on a slip found at the residence of the assessee's father, indicating transactions involving the assessee. The Tribunal deleted the addition, noting that no presumption u/s 132(4A) could be raised against the assessee for a document found at another person's residence, and there was no evidence to support the addition.Conclusion:The departmental appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with several additions being deleted or reduced based on the Tribunal's findings.