1990 (8) TMI 195

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urvey it was found that a car Padmini DEC 4837 was found parked in front of the assessee's shop. On perusal of the documents relating to the car it was found that the insurance paper stands in the name of Shri Ranjit Singh, however, the address of Shri Ranjit Singh was given as "C/o Ashok Kumar" who is the son of the assessee, one of the partner of the firm. At the time of the survey the assessee denied the ownership of the car stating that the car might be belonged to somebody who might have come to see the lawyer living nearby in the name of Shri Dina Nath. An enquiry was also made from Shri Bhagwat Swarup. But no satisfactory explanation regarding the ownership was given. Later on it was found that this car was an asset of the firm from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from Shri Atar Singh did not have a financial capacity to purchase the car and on the date of survey, it was not registered in his name. (4) Copies of account of Shri Ranjit Singh obtained from the books of M/s Hari Ram Goda Mal, show sale of agricultural produce as under: Financial year 1980-81 Rs. 34,107 Financial year 1981-82 Rs. 26,111 Financial year 1982-83 Rs. 56,690 (5) On4th March, 1985, the car officially became the property of the firm and the assessee filed a revised return under the new scheme disclosing Rs. 40,000 (6) insurance paper shows ownership of Shri Ranjit Singh but the address given is C/o Ashok Kumar S/o Bhagwat Swarup, Managing partner of the firm. (7) Even in the registration papers, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....84 the assessee has purchased this car and made investment. Therefore, he vehemently argued that the addition made by the Revenue authorities on account of income from undisclosed sources to the extent of Rs. 73,000 in the hands of the assessee firm is not correct. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the points raised by the Revenue authorities in their order and submitted that the facts pointed out in the order of the CIT(A) proved beyond reasonable doubt that the asset was in the possession of the assessee at the time of the special survey made by the Department and later on the same was transferred in the name of the assessee clearly proved the fact that the assessee had purchased this car in the financial year 1982-83 but....