TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the signatures and thumb impression of the labourers differed and hence he made an addition of Rs. 75,000 to the total income of the assessee. 3. However, on appeal the first appellate authority was of the view that the difference in signature should not be adversely treated without properly examining the person concerned. However, he sustained an addition of Rs. 45,000 on estimate and granted a relief of Rs. 30,000 to the assessee. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CIT(A), both the assessee as well as the Revenue has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Mr. B.L. Purohit, the learned authorised representative for the assessee, submitted that all the details regarding the payment of salaries to the labourers were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t raised any defect in the correctness or completeness of the accounts maintained by the assessee. Hence the AO or the first appellate authority has no discretion to estimate the addition. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative, Mr. D.K. Biswas, submitted that the business of the assessee was mainly labour-oriented and it was found that some set of persons were engaged week after week. So, according to the Departmental Representative since the same persons were engaged continuously there should not be any variation in the signature or thumb impression of the labourers. Since there was a variation the AO came to the conclusion that there was an inflation in the expenditure and hence he rightly added back Rs. 75,000 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the proceedings before this Tribunal. However, as time and again it was pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts that the principles enunciated in the Indian Evidence Act and the CPC can always be taken into aid whenever IT Act is silent on that aspect. In this case there is a variation of signature and thumb impression according to the AO. Hence, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in ss. 45, 47 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act can be taken into aid for resolving the present dispute. The apex Court in the case of Bandha & K. Sudha, AIR 1996 SC 1140 held that the learned Judge in that case ought not to have taken the hazarduous task of adjudicating upon genuineness and auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ror in making an addition on the ground that the signatures are varying. 8. Admittedly, the payments were made to labourers. It is well-known common principles that the signature of one man cannot be similar to that of another even if it is signed on a particular time. Signature of one person is bound to have some difference apart from some characteristic similarity. As it was pointed out by the Hon'ble Madras High Court the thumb impression cannot at all be compared with naked eye. So, the first appellate authority has rightly accepted the explanation offered by the assessee and came to the conclusion that it should not be adversely treated without proper examining the persons concerned. When we posed a specific question to the learned De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies of the labourers going away from that places cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the law and order problem which prevailed in N.E. States is also one of the ground which may compel such labourers to leave the particular place due to long gap of 10 years. Some of them might have expired. In view of the above, we find that no useful purposes will be served in remanding back the matter to the AO for proper verification. However, as it was discussed earlier the AO cannot make addition merely on the ground that the signature and thumb impression are varied. In view of the judicial pronouncement that the thumb impression and signature cannot be compared with naked eye, we are of the opinion that the AO has committed an error in comparing and comin....