TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Deposits with Canara Bank : 28,53,778/- 8 Investment in UTI : 1,00,000/- 9 Gift to Master Vivek/Krishnapriya : 1,20,000/- 10 Investment in Tamilarasi : 52,500/- 11 Land at Thanjavur : 2,13,000/- 12 Deposits in Tamilarasi : 2,12,310/- 13 Interest suspense account : 4,23,460/- 14 Unexplained credits a. Capital account : 10,00,000/- b. Apna Finance : 7,80,000/- c. Ashok Mehta : 5,76,000/- d. Omprakash Mehta : 4,16,000/- e. Chandrasekhar & B. Gitanjali : 6,50,000/- 15 Credit Card payments : 3.15,714/- 16 Unproved expenditure : a. Advertisement : 1,60,055/- b.. Electricity charges : 33,794/- c. Travelling and conveyance : 1,20,000/- d. Car Maintenance : 37,471/- e. Preliminary expenses : 8,947/- f. Depreciation disallowed : 4,60,000/- g. Donation : 1,500/- h. Disallowance under sec. 40A(3) : 1,33,365/- i. Scan Tech u/s.41(1) : 67,055/- 17 Unexplained investment in jewellery : 2,00,000/- 18 Foreign tour expenses : 31,42,000/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or , if the income tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them or not specified by them, the Tribunal for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced''. Further, whatever rule is applicable for filing the appeal before the Tribunal is also applicable for filing additional grounds. Thus sec. 253(6) of the Act prescribes that appeal to the Tribunal shall be filed in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner and shall, in the case of an appeal made, on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 irrespective of the date of initiation of the assessment proceedings relating thereto, be accompanied by a fee of :- a) where the total income of the assessee as computed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In that case, whether the Tribunal can consider the Miscellaneous Petition suo motu and the Tribunal, in exercise of its own powers, can verify the mistake whether pointed out by the D.R. or on its own. This decision of the jurisdictional High Court pertains to the old Income-tax Act of 1922 where rectification by the Tribunal is provided under section 35 of the old Act and in section 35 of the old Act, it was specifically provided that the words "in like manner" appearing in subsection (2) of section 35 in relation to sub-section (1) of section 35 are not sufficient to apprehend the Authorised Representative of the Income-tax Department. It is noted that the ld. Authorised Representative for assessee have no power to sign any appeals, Co-objections, grounds and additional grounds before the Tribunal. He is authorized only to argue the case. He is not competent to sign the appeals, Co-objections, grounds and additional grounds before the Tribunal as per the provisions of the Act. As per section 140 of the Income Tax Act, the following person could sign the appeals, co-objections, grounds and additional grounds before the Tribunal. a) in the case of an individual, (i) by the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtner as such, by any partner thereof. (d) in the case of a local authority, by the principal officer thereof; (dd) in the case of a political party referred to in sub-section (4B) of section 139, by the chief executive officer of such party (whether such chief executive officer is known as secretary or by any other designation) ; (e) in the case of any other association, by any member of the association or the principal officer thereof; and (f) in the case of any other person, by that person or by some person competent to act on his behalf. The procedure for filing of additional grounds is at par with the filing of appeal and the rules framed under ITAT Rules for filing of appeal will also apply to additional ground also. The IT Rules, 1962, prescribes an appeal shall be in form No.36 and the form gives the required verification portion. It is also prescribed in Rule 47 that memorandum and the grounds of appeal as also the verification portion shall be signed by the assessee as prescribed under Rule 45(2). If the entire provisions of the IT Act, 1961, IT Rules, 1962 and ITAT Rules, 1963, are read together it clearly emerges that an application for admission of addition ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earch in the case of the assessee on 24.09.96 u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. His residence in Kalashetra colony and the business premises at No. 84, TTK Road, were searched. Various documents as per Panchanama drawn up at the time of search were seized in the course of the search. A notice U/s, 158BC dated 04.11.96 was issued to the assessee. Subsequently notices were issued u/s. 142(1) of the Income-tax Act calling for certain particulars. On his request, the assessee was also permitted to take copies of seized materials. Finally on 05.09.97, the assessee filed his return of income in Form No. 2B in compliance with the notice u/s. 158 BC. In the return he admitted a total undisclosed income of E3,80,000. Subsequently notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 09.09.1997. In response to this notice u /s.143(2) and other notices, assessee's representative appeared and filed some of the details called for. After hearing the assessee's representative and after going through the books of account, seized documents, statements, letters etc. filed by the assessee and on behalf of the assessee and also relying on the Special Audit Report u/s 142(2A) furnished by Shri. K. Venkataraman, FCA of M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the Assessing Officer the assessee informed that since they are all minor issues and that due to lapse of time, there are no further details available. No written submissions were also made in respect of those issues before Assessing Officer. Accordingly, considering the submissions made during the assessment proceedings, the assessment order was passed by Assessing Officer within the three months time limit from the date of receipt of the order by Assessing Officer as directed by the High Court. During the course of this High Court remand proceedings before Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished further details only on the issue of Subscribers' deposit. 4.3 The assessee commenced his business of Tamilarasi Publication during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1993-94. During the previous year relevant to assessment year 1994-95 there was credit balance in the subscription deposit account of E70,32,500/-, which went up to E1,47,86,860/- for the year ending 31.03.1995. It was set to be received from 6000 parties ranging from E1,500/- to E2,500/- for which one of the magazines were given free of cost as along as deposit was not withdrawn, who has given E2,500/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s is in view of our below mentioned findings in respect of despatches of both Tamilarasi ( weekly) and Puthiaparvai (fortnightly) to the Agents/subscribers. Kept and maintained by the publications as to date. i). The publication has been dispatching the magazines both by Rail and Book post (duly evidenced by the Despatch Register/Railway Acknowledgements /Postal expenses for Book Post etc. ii). None of the Vasagar Vattams appear to have been included In the Despatch Summary/Register in evidence of despatches. iii). In the absence of any supporting evidences for despatches to Vasagar Vattams (though stated to have been sent by lorries/their own vans). We could not check/verify such despatches at all. iv). Further, the manuscript copy (manuscript copy-please see EXHIBIT 11- kept herewith of the details of despatches for November 1997 also did not evidence the despatches to the Subscribers Nasagar vattams. 3.6 To summarise the publication did not appear to have followed any of the Internal Control aspects/ maintenance 6f basic records (as mentioned below) in order to check/ascertain the genuineness and veracity of the scheme. 3.6.1 No receipts appeared to have been issued to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted in November, 1997. As per this manuscript. 6027 copies have been dispatched but none of it is for the alleged depositors. The details of despatches furnished by the Special auditor are as under: Central : 1853 Egmore : 1785 City Agent : 750 H.B. Stall : 215 Postal : 377 Free copies : 100 Office copies : 50 Subscription & Extra : 896/- 6027/- 1). Since how long are you a reader/subscriber to the above magazine. 2. Whether you are subscribing to both the magazines. 3). Mode of subscription by you that is to say whether monthly, annual or any other mode 4). If the subscription is for more than a year, the period for which you paid the same and the amount of subscription. 5). Whether the subscription paid by you was by cash or by way of cheque/drafts etc. 6). Whether you . paid the subscription directly to the magazine office in chennai or to any local agent. If so, the name and address of such local agent. 7). Whether the magazines are supplied to you regularly. 8). The mode by which you get the magazines ie., directly from the magazine office by post. courier service etc.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contacted by the officers of the department denied having made any deposit. They also denied knowledge about the magazine. Enquiries made at Namakkal revealed that Mr. Chandrasekar who is a lecturer in Ramakrishna Nallammai Industrial Training Institute, had obtained lot of letters signed by students of first year degree courses in his college. But none of the students had made any deposit. The names and addresses of the persons with whom such enquiries were made, along with the brief outcome of such enquiries were also enclosed as Annexure III to the Block Assessment Order. 4.8 Vide his letter dated 13.02.98, the result of these investigation including Annexure I to III mentioned above, were made available to the assessee for his comments by the then AO. The assessee was specifically asked by Assessing Officer to produce necessary proof about the genuineness of the scheme. Inter alia, he was asked to furnish details and proof regarding a) Printing of sufficient number of copies of the magazines. b) Satisfactory proof regarding distribution and dispatch of the magazines to the alleged depositors. c) Details of the expenses debited for the distribution of magazines to these dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... proof and the address proof of these persons. After these were filed by the assessee, vide our letter dated 12.02.2013 before Assessing Officer, the assessee was directed to produce all the persons mentioned in his earlier letters, for personal examination by the undersigned on 19.02.2013. The assessee also produced 9 persons. The details of the persons produced are as under: PERSONS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.02.2013 Name of the assessee List in Asst. order Ref. No in list Whether income tax assessee PAN Return copy Bank statement copy Mr. Sakthivelraja Annx. III No such person in the given address 6 Yes No Not produced T. Chandran Annex. III denied the deposit 9 No No Not produced S. Chinnan Annex. I Notice returned unserved 36 No No Not produced R. Venkatraman Annex. III denied the deposit 11 No Not produced G.Siddesaran Annex. I Notice returned unserved 38 No No Not produced R. Govindrajan Annex. I Notice returned unserved 16 No No Not produced G. Selvam Annex. II Denied the deposited 2 No No Not produced K. Kumaravel Annex. I Notice returned unserved 15 No No Not pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e not satisfactorily explained an since the provisions of sec. 68 is very clear that it is for the assessee to offer satisfactory explanation in respect of credits found in books and as elaborated above since the assessee could not officer satisfactory explanation the amounts credited represent assessee's own undisclosed income assessable u/s.68. However, considering that about 14 of them have affirmed the deposits and taking into account the other factors, it would be reasonable to treat a portion of these deposits as genuine. Going by the small no. Of persons who have confirmed the deposits to the satisfaction of the department, it was considered that it would be fair and proper to treat 15% of the total deposits as genuine and accordingly out of the total amount of E1,47,86,860/- and amount of E22,18,029/- is treated as genuine and the balance amount of E1,25,68,831/- is treated as unexplained credit u/s.68. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer having allowed 15% of subscriber deposits as genuine, it was implicit that he had accepted the bonafide of the subscriber deposit scheme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere collected. Out of 6000 persons only 14 of them have given confirmation saying that they have given deposit. Hence the Assessing Officer considered 15% deposit as genuine and the balance he considered as unexplained income of the assessee. Before us, the assessee submitted that the issue has to be decided in favor of the assessee in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jaya Publications vide order dated 30.11.2007 in ITA No.1130/Mds/2003 and others. In that case the Tribunal in para 5 observed as under:- ''5. We have heard both the sides and perused the records available with us including the written submissions filed by the learned Counsel for the assessee. We have gone through the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). From the impugned order it is not clear as to on what basis, the first appellate authority worked out the percentage 1.5% to give relief to the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the assessee hs claimed to have collected Scheme Deposits from 2250 persons and filed complete details of the names and address of the depositors. We find that that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted these deposits as genuine becaus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y have not received hack the news print or its cash equivalent of E7.5 lakhs. In their letter dated 25.02.1998 they have categorically stated that they have never got back either 24.5tons of news print given to Tamilarasi Publication for performing certain job work or the cost of the news print till the date of the letter. All this information collected from M/s. Capital Market along with a copy of the letter dated 25.2.98 was furnished to the assessee by Assessing Officer vide letter dated 27.2.98. In this letter, it was proposed that since M/s. Capital market has denoted having received back the stock the entry passed by the assessee in his books on 26.8.95 it appears that the assessee did not propose to return the stock but at the same time create an impression that it has been returned. Since the stock appeared to have been used by the assessee himself, or it is lying in stock with him, it is evident that he had derived benefit from this business. Such benefit is taxable within the meaning of section 28 (iv) of if not u/s. 28(iv) of the Act. It is liable to be assessed u/s 41 (1) on account of the cessation of liability as evidenced by the assessee ought to have filed his objec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... benefit had accrued to assessee u/s.28(iv) as stated by the Assessing Officer. 6.3 The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 6.4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case the issue was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer by Jurisdictional High Court vide judgment in T.C.No.1172/2005, dated 19.07.2012 for the purpose of affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the claim. Inspite of giving opportunity to the assessee on 14.12.2012, 07.01.2013, 28.01.2013, 05.02.2013 and 19.02.2013, it was recorded by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not made any submissions before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer having no option passed the assessment order on 28.02.2013. Before us, the assessee placed reliance confirmation letter from Mr. Raju on 26.08.1995 returning this newsprint. Being so, the findings of the Tribunal of the earlier occasion holds good, wherein it was held as under:- ''23. Next issue relates to the addition of E7,50,000/- on account of purchase of newsprint from M/s. Capital Market. We have heard the rival submissions. For th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorised Representative for assessee submitted that considerable agricultural income for the family has been explained earlier available for expenses apart from other receipts reflected in the cash flow statement. 7.3 The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 7.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee filed cash flow statement. We have gone through the cash flow statement. Which is reproduced herein below. CASH FLOW STATEMENT 7.5 We find there is no entry with regard to advance to Mr. Vivek in the cash flow statement. Being so, we consider this amount as undisclosed income of the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal of the assessee is rejected. 8. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to E 1,65,000/-fixed deposits in Canara bank (i.e. E75,000/- for the assessment year 1987-88 and E1,00,000/- for the assessment year 1992-93) which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer. 8.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee had invested E75,000/- and E 1,00,000/- for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1992-93 respectively by way of Fixed Deposit in Canara B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was asked to offer his explanation for the difference in this respect vide this office letter dated 04-03-98. A letter was filed by the assessee's representative on 11.03.1998 stating that the explanation is available in the cash flow statement. However. the cash flow statement has already been rejected as unreliable. The explanation is rejected. Therefore the difference of E5.19 lakhs is treated as assessee's undisclosed income. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9.2 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that reference to DVO for estimating the cost of construction in proceedings u/s.158BC is wrong. As per the Sec. 158BB, it was held that the undisclosed income of the block period shall be the aggregate of TI of the previous year falling within the block period computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of accounts or other documents and such other material or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence. The report of DVO is not a material found as a result of search and hence cannot form the basis of addition in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtunities to do so. The gross income of E21,000/-, admitted by the assessee in the block return represents interest on fixed deposits with Canara Bank for the assessment year 1990-91. This amount of interest has not been admitted withdrawn. Hence, even this amounts is not available for his personal expenses. Therefore, the personal expenses has been met by the assessee out of undisclosed sources. Therefore, the Assessing Officer estimated E4,000/- per month i.e E48,000/- and E21,000/- interest from bank admitted in block return in form 2B and Assessing Officer made an addition of E69,000/- as undisclosed income for the assessment year 1990-91, for the assessment years 1991-1992 and 1992-93 , the Assessing Officer estimated his personal expenses at E48,000/- and E60,000/- respectively met by the assessee out of the undisclosed sources. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 10.2. The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has merely estimated the expenses and made the addition without any search material to this effect. It was settled law that there cannot be any estimate of UDI unless there are material found in search warrantin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... E2,15,000/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 11.2 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that no estimated addition is possible in block assessment unless it is relatable to evidence found in the course of search as to the unexplained nature of expenditure or investment. The assessee has shown drawings in the cash flow as well as the years in which the regular returns were filed. A mere summary rejection of it cannot be a ground to hold that the amount invested is the undisclosed investment of the assessee. 11.3 The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 11.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. There is no seized material found during the course of search suggesting this addition. The addition is made only on estimation basis hoping that they were purchased during the course of block period. The assessee is being a senior person having means to purchase these articles from known sources as there is no evidence to suggest that it has acquired from unaccounted income of the assessee. Accordingly, this addition is deleted. This ground of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the parties and perused the material on record. In the cash flow statement these deposits was not reflected in the respective assessments years. Being so, it is treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 13. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to investment of E1,00,000/- for the assessment year 1991-92. 13.1 The facts of the issue are that the assessee made an investment of E1 lakh in Unit Trust of India during the assessment year 1991-92. The assessee was asked to explain the source for the investment. The assessee submitted the cash flow statement which has been rejected by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated E1,00,000/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. 13.2 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that the source for the UTI investment of E1,00,000/- is traceable in the cash flow statement filed by the assessee. A mere summary rejection of it cannot be a ground to hold that the amount investment is the undisclosed income of the assessee. 13.3 The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 13.4 We have heard b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arasi Publications during the year with an admitted capital investment of E52,500/-. The assessee was directed to explain the source of this capital investment vide department letters dated 02.07.1997 and 20.02.1998. The assessee has not explained the source. Hence, the Assessing Officer treated E52,500/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. 15.2 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted the explanation is given regarding source of fund in the cash flow statement. The reason given by the Assessing Officer to discredit the cash flow statement is arbitrary and merely based on surmises. 15.3 The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 15.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. This amount of E52,500/- was reflected in the cash flow statement for the year ended 31.03.1992. Being so, the addition cannot be made. Hence, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 16. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to purchase of land at Thanjavur for E2,13,000/- which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee is allowed. 18. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to interest suspense account of E4,23,460/- for the assessment year 1995-96. 18.1 The facts of the case are that there was a credit of E4,23,460/-under the head interest suspense. The details in respect of the same was not furnished by the assessee, though the department has called for the same vide letter dated 25.02.1998. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated E4,23,460/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 18.2 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that there was actually a debit balance in the books of the assessee. The assessee has claimed deduction in respect of proportionate amount for two assessment years as an expenditure. The Assessing Officer went wrong in not allowing the deduction but also erroneously treated this is as a credit balance and made the addition. 18.3 The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 18.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee has not furnished the details of these expenditure. In our opinion, whenever asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e exact source such as bank account etc from which was paid. These persons were not produced before the Assessing Officer. The confirmation letters are not given any credence. Since, there is no evidence regarding the repayment of these loans by these individuals the credits in their accounts are treated as assessee's undisclosed income. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. 19.2 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that confirmations letters from these parties and the Assessing Officer treated these credits as not genuine without any sort of examination of the parties concerned. The onus cast on the assessee of proving the credits was discharged by way of filing confirmation from the parties. It was within the powers of the Assessing Officer to summon them and examine the creditors which the Assessing Officer does not chose to do. The parties are regular financiers and the Assessing Officer could have caused their examination before treating the credits as unexplained. Under these circumstances, the rejection of the explanation and addition of the amounts are unexplained credits may be deleted. That apart, these credits figure in the books of Tami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s debited to his account are as under:- Date Amount in US $ 11.1.1995 3228 13.1.1995 375 16.1.1995 626 18.1.1995 1260 27.1.1995 153.02 The assessee has not adduced any evidence such as copies of hospital bills etc. to show that the expenditure was incurred on Mr. Thomas Yip and that the payment was in fact made by Mr.Thomas Yip. No details of source such as debit to a bank account of Mr. Thomas Yip etc., have been furnished to substantiate the claim that the payment was in fact made by Thomas Yip. No details of source such as debits to a bank account of Mr.Thomas Yip etc have been furnished to substantive the claim that Mr. Yip made the payment. Further, if it was to be believed that Mr. Yip suddenly fell ill and the assessee helped him in hospitalisation. It was not understandable a to why the amounts were debited to the assessee's account and that too spread over a period of 02 months or so. The Assessing Officer not satisfied that the source of this payment from Thomas Yip. Therefore, the payment of US$5642/- (equivalent Indian money E1,80,262/-) was treated as assessee's expenditure from unexplained sources. The representative's letter was silen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial Auditor. The case was posted for hearing for this purpose on 02.03.1998 by Assessing Officer. The assessee has not furnished any proof in this regard. M/s. Excellent 2 Publication. M/s. 2 Publicities have confirmed the transaction with the assessee and the same was allowed. The transactions with M/s. Moulis advertising also was checked up and they have confirmed the transaction. The total expenses claimed by the assessee as payment to Moulis is E2,26,341/- only. The assessee has filed vouchers for payments of CC display also. Out of total amount of E16,77,646/- a sum of E1,08,000/- which is not proved by the assessee is disallowed. Further, special auditor has reported that advertisement expenses to the extent of E52,055/- are not supported by vouchers /Bills. In the absence of any explanation from the assessee, the special auditor. The Assessing Officer treated E52,055/- as assessee's undisclosed income. Under the head advertisement expenses, the Assessing Officer treated E1,60,055/- as undisclosed income of the assessee. 21.2 With regard to electricity charges which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer, the facts of the case are that the Special Audito....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ld. Authorised Representative for assessee in a revised computation of the income returned by the assessee in the block return. While deducting this from taxable income depreciation @20%. The Assessing Officer treated E68,799/-, E52,454/-, 193,612/- and E1,45,756/-, totalling E4,60,000/- treated undisclosed income of the asseseee. 21.7 With regard to disallowance u/s.40A(3) to the tune of E1,33,365/- which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer, the facts of the case are that in the special audit report the payment of E38,365/- , 48750, 16,250/- and 30,000/-/- is made in cash on 11.10.1993, 14.06.1995, 15.06.1995 and 01.07.1995. The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee in his reply dated 9.3.1998 has stated that this payment was made in cash because of the urgency. According to him it is covered by Rule 6DD. The assessee however has not proved the genuiness of this payment. Moreover the circumstances has not proved the genuiness of this payment. Moreover, the circumstances explained for making the cash payment was also not satisfactory. So this amount is therefore added to the business income of the assessee. 21.8 With regard to liability due to Sca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer will not render the amount as unexplained investment. 22.3 The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 22.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the cash flow statement for the year ending 31.03.1996, this amount of E2,00,000/- was not reflected in the cash flow statement filed before us. Being so, the addition of E2,00,000/- is sustained. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 23. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to foreign travel expenses to tune of E31,42,000/- which was treated as undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer. 23.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee made a foreign trip to Singapore, Hongkong and Phillipness. The duration of the trip is from 17.2.1991 to 18.4.1991. The expenses are spread over two previous year. The assessee was asked to explain the source of funds for his foreign trips. In this letter dated 2.9.1997 the assessee stated that the trip was for his business for attending printing and computer machine exhibition and the expenditure is accounted in the books. The assessee has not pin pointedly given any details including the de....