TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (8) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m house property, brick-kiln business, lease-money from cinema building, share from a money share from a firm, capital gains and other sources. The residential premises of the assessee family were searched on19th Nov., 1974under s. 132(1) of the IT Act and certain loose papers written in the form of cash book containing certain day-to-day entries of in-comings and out-goings of cash for the period1st July, 1970to31st Dec., 1972were seized. The assessee had constructed a cinema building which was completed during the year under consideration and had also made investment for acquiring other equipment. The cinema was let out on lease in March, 1972. As per information contained in the said loose papers, investment in the cinema building and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly proved. The assessee in this regard relied on the provisions of s. 132(4A) of the IT Act, 1961 and contended that no evidence was required to prove the said loans and that they should be accepted in view of the provisions of the said s. 132(4A). The ITO had made a reference to the IAC who instructed the ITO that the depositors may be examined under s. 131 and that necessary action may be taken as resulting therefrom. The parties concerned denied in their statements, to have given any loans to the assessee. The ITO also examined two other persons. Dr. M.C. Sharma and one Shri Anokhey Lal. The examination of these persons was necessitated by the fact that the assessee had claimed that the loans had been arranged by the said Dr. M.C. Sharm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s required from the assessee to prove the genuineness of the loan. In appeal before the CIT (A), it was contended that the loans were duly entered in the papers which were seized and were not meant for production before the IT Department and that, therefore, there was no question of any manipulation being done in regard to these loans. According to the assessee, the provisions of s. 132(4A) were clearly applicable and that the ITO had failed to appreciate the correct legal position. It was further submitted that Dr. M.C. Sharma and Shri Anokhey Lal had almost admitted their hand-writing and that, therefore the ITO should not have drawn any adverse inference in regard to these loans. The ITO had not acted under s. 132(4A) on the ground that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. The papers found at the time of the raid were not meant for production before the Department. These have, therefore, to be accepted as they are Dr. Sharma and Shri Anokhey Lal had admitted their hand writing on the said papers. The amounts were advances in black in Account No. 2. It was not known under what circumstances, the creditor parties were not now owning up the amounts. It the amounts noted on the papers were taken as genuine and these amounts were not to be disclosed by the assessee to the Department the names of the parties shown against these amounts have also to be taken an genuine. We order accordingly. Incidentally, it was also argued on behalf of the assessee that the amount should be taken as covered by the voluntary disc....