1994 (7) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ress at Rs. 35,000. According to him, this amount was low as compared to the bills raised after 31st March, 1985. He noticed that a bill for Rs. 1,64,011 was raised on 1st April, 1985 in respect of a hotel complex and another bill for Rs. 42,870 was raised on 5th April, 1985 in respect of a Sangham work. Therefore, the AO held that the work-in-progress was suppressed to an extent of Rs. 1.2 lakhs. The assessee's explanation that in respect of the bills raised against the hotel, the assessee made debits for the purchase of materials only after 1st April, 1985 was not accepted by the AO. Thus he held that a sum of Rs. 1,64,011 is to be included and deducting 25% gross profit on the above bill amount of Rs. 1,64,011 he made an addition of Rs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dvance of Rs. 55,000 received by him on the sale of a house, not accounted for in the books of accounts, and another sum of Rs. 22,000 was taken as loan from his wife. The balance amounts were taken as loans from his relatives. The AO noticed that the advance received for the sale of the house was otherwise spent, according to another version of the assessee himself, and, therefore, the impugned advance could not be available for deposits with Nedungdi Bank. He did not accept the contention of the assessee that he took a loan of Rs. 22,000 from his wife. In this view of the matter, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,05,000. The assessee appealed in vain and is in second appeal. 3. Sri. R. Srinivasan, the learned Chartered Accountant, vehem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ormal circumstance. Therefore, Sri Srinivasan submitted that no addition is called for in a sum of Rs. 87,692. With regard to the unexplained deposits with Nedungadi Bank he submitted that wife of the assessee was not examined at all, still the loan from her has been disbelieved. The other explanation of the assessee was only disbelieved because of apparent contradiction in his statements. Factually these deposits were made from out of the loans and advance received on the sale of the house. At any rate, the addition in a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 towards unexplained deposits was not called for. Sri Srinivasan further submitted that the assessee did not want to have a protracted litigation on the issues in this appeal and, therefore, decided to g....