TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (5) TMI 1070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious parties on interest. The Assessing Officer has also pointed out that the assessee admitted in his statement recorded under section 131 that he is advancing cash loans. The assessee has also admitted in answer to question No. 2, when pointed out certain entries in the personal memorandum diaries relating to 1992 and earlier period, that these entries are written in the coded language. Regarding one amount of Rs. 2,000 written against one Ramakant Kadam on entry No. 4182 in Annexure A-7, the assessee admitted that this amount really represented a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs paid to Shri Ramakant Kadam. 2. The search and seizure action under section 132 was conducted in the business and residential premises of the assessee on 15/16th July, 1996. As a result of search, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the block period 1-4-1986 to 15-7-1996. During the course of search, cash of Rs. 1,25,000 was seized apart from seizure of jewellery to the extent of Rs. 1,07,703 (out of jewellery worth Rs. 3,45,092 found at the Vile Parle residence of the assessee) and seizure of shares and debentures etc. worth Rs. 39,29,432 out of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rket demand etc. The Assessing Officer has mentioned that it is not understood why the assessee voluntarily reduced the agreed price by Rs. 8.50 lakhs. The Assessing Officer has stated that the only reasonable explanation appeared to be that the assessee had received the difference in cash. The assessee had argued before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT that the land was never in his possession nor the possession was given to M/s. Vishal Developers. The assessee had also produced 7/12 extract and a letter dated 30-7-1997 from M/s. Vishal Developers showing that M/s. Vishal Developers do not have any physical possession of the plot due to non-availability of the right of way. However, the assessee agreed that he is having Power of Attorney for sale of this plot. The Assessing Officer has stated that by virtue of the Power of Attorney the assessee became owner and in view of the agreement mentioned above, the assessee sold the plot of land for Rs. 31.11 lakhs to M/s. Vishal Developers. The Assessing Officer pointed out that this transaction is not declared by the assessee in his return of income. The Assessing Officer has pointed out that the assessee had received Rs. 3,11,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 The learned Counsel further stated that no addition could be made on presumptions. Reliance was placed on the following decisions : - (i)St. Teresa';s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala (1970) 76 ITR 365 (Ker.), (ii)K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC), (iii)Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271(SC), (iv)Patel Rajeshkumar Kantilal & Co. v. CIT (1998) 62 TTJ (Ahd.) 189. 6.2 The learned Counsel further stated that the apparent state of affairs is to be treated as real unless contrary is proved and no addition can be made on presumption: - (i)Kalwa Devadattam v. Union of India (1963) 49 ITR 165(SC), (ii)CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC), (iii)CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349(SC). 6.3 The learned Counsel further contended that no addition could be made on the basis of rough sheets/loose papers. In this regard, reliance was placed on the following decisions: - (i)Ashwani Kumar v. ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183(Delhi), (ii)Kishanchand Sobhrajmal v. Asstt. CIT (1992) 41 ITD 97(Jp.), (iii)Kantilal & Bros. v. Asstt. CIT (1995) 52 ITD 412(Pune), (iv)Shri Ram Bhagwandas Raheja v. ACIT, IT (S&S) A No. 118/M/96, (v)S.K.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Rs. 23 lakhs was still due and payable to the assessee. To the assessee';s argument that no addition could be made on presumptions, the learned Departmental Representative pointed out that there is no presumption and the addition is based on the documents found during search. To the argument of the learned Counsel of the assessee that no addition can be made on the basis of rough sheets or loose papers, the learned Departmental Representative contended that the relevant papers are not rough sheets or loose papers, but they are duly signed documents. To the assessee';s argument that presumption under section 132(4A) is available only for the limited purpose of section 132(5) and 132(11), the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the decision of the ITAT Hyderabad Bench ';B'; Third Member in the case of Smt. Kesari Bai v. ITO (1990) 32 ITD 1 (TM) (SB) and the decision of Jaipur Bench of the ITAT in the case of R.N. Ghiya v. Asstt. CIT (1995) 54 ITD 269and contended that section 132(4A) raises a presumption, though rebuttable, that the available article or thing found during the course of search in the possession or control of any person shall belong to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the rival submissions and to the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that in this case though the property under consideration was in dispute, yet as the assessee was having a Power of Attorney he could be treated as owner in view of the extended meaning of "owner" contemplated by the provisions of section 2(47). However, as the Capital Gains of Rs. 23 lakhs are proposed to be taxed on accrual basis, it is important to see whether there was a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47). Even before the Assessing Officer the assessee had taken the stand that M/s. Vishal Developers do not have any physical possession over the plot of land due to the non-availability of the right of way. In this regard a letter dated 29th July, 1997 (wrongly mentioned as dated 30-7-1997 by the Assessing Officer) from M/s. Vishal Developers was produced before the Assessing Officer along with 7/12 extract. The Assessing Officer has not proved that the transferee had taken possession of the property or otherwise became the owner of the property. On the other hand, looking to the evidence produced before the Assessing Officer, the learned Counsel of the assessee has been able to prove that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any sum could be part of an assessment under section 158BC as a result of dealings with Mr. S.R. Dantal, the Assessing Officer erred in including the following in the figure of Rs. 78,34,000 - (i)Some amount allegedly being interest. (ii)An amount in excess of Rs. 20,00,000. (5) The Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that there was no material in support of the case that an amount of Rs. 78,34,000 was the undisclosed income of the appellant and in fact all the available material was to the contrary." 11. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 78,34,000 on the ground that the source of the capital for financing the loans advanced by the assessee could not be explained and hence full amount of capital along with the interest amounting to Rs. 78,34,000 was added as assessee';s income from undisclosed sources. The relevant seized papers on which the addition is based, are page Nos. 104, 105 and 106 of Annexure A-1 (available at Exhibit-II to the assessment order). The relevant extracts from the Assessing Officer';s order are reproduced as under : - "From the seized material file A-1, it is seen that assessee has financed to Mr. S.R. Dantal again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the note-book A/8 the calculation for this deal is made with interest in the coded form. Same is decoded as under : 10000/00 25-2-1993 10,00,000 25-2-1993 5000/00 10-10-1993 5,00,000 10-10-1993 5000/00 1-12-1993 5,00,000 1-11-1993 Further on page 67 for calculation of interest as on 23-2-1993 Rs. 10 lakhs are shown as Rs. 10.00. Accordingly after the addition of interest, the amount with interest as on 30-9-1995 comes to Rs. 78,34,000. As the source of capital for financing this loan is not known, full amount of capital with interest is added as undisclosed income. The documents referred above are enclosed as exhibit." 12. The learned Counsel of the assessee invited our attention to page 364 of the Paper Book wherein the copy of affidavit of Shri S.R. Dantal is available. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid affidavit are reproduced as under : "I have further to declare that I have received Rs. 20,000 from Shri P.R. Patel on different dates and he promised to pay me the remaining amount within three months, but he has failed to make further payments. The amounts written on Page No. 3 as Rs. 10,00,000, Rs. 5,00,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. 10-10-1993 -do- -do- 5.00 3. 1-11-1993 -do- -do- 5.00 20.00 The Indemnity Bond is attested by Advocate & Notary Mr. U.N. Konkar please explain all the abovementioned agreements and documents ? A. :We have not entered into any monitory transaction with the above documents except Rs. 30,000 paid to Shri S.R. Dantal on different dates. Today we have given a copy of affidavit made by Shri S.R. Dantal in this connection. Q. 21 :Now I am showing you page No. 66 of file A/8. The date exactly tallies with the date mentioned in Indemnity Bond and date of different agreements as mentioned above. What you want to say about this ? A. :The diary serial No. A/8 was written by my Son-in-law Shri Arvind Patel. The basis on which he has maintained the diary is not known to me. As appearing on page No. 66 I have made the payments of Rs. 30,000 on different dates to Shri S.R. Dantal. To best of my knowledge the amounts written in diary is actual and there is no code or quoted figure." 12.2 Further to replies to question Nos. 20 and 21 by the assessee the learned Counsel contended that undisclosed cash, jewellery or shar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fact that the figures mentioned in the seized document available at page 360 tally with the seized document, namely, Indemnity-cum-Declaration available at Exhibit-II to the assessment order. It was stated that not only the figures tally, but the dates of receipt of the amounts by Shri S.R. Dantal also tally. The figures mentioned in the seized document available at page 360 are in coded language whereas the figures mentioned in the Indemnity-cum-Declaration are the normal figures and the learned Departmental Representative stated that this proves that the figures recorded in the seized document (copy of which is available at page 360 of the Paper Book) are in coded language. The learned Departmental Representative also relied upon the decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of Parakh Foods Ltd. (supra). 14. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case. In the Indemnity-cum-Declaration (copy available at Exhibit-II to the assessment order) from S.R. Dantal to the assessee which is duly signed by Shri S.R. Dantal as Proprietor of M/s. S.R. Dantal, it is clearly stated that as agreed the assessee had already paid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kh & Co.';s case (supra) cannot be construed to lay down the proposition that unless the deponent is cross-examined, the affidavit cannot be rejected. In view of the documentary evidence found and seized from the assessee';s premises showing the transactions entered into by the assessee with Shri S.R. Dantal, not much evidentiary value can be given to the affidavit of Shri S.R. Dantal, which is a self-serving statement and goes against the documentary evidence seized during the course of search. 15. There is a receipt available in each of the Memorandums of Understanding for allotment of flat. One such receipt is reproduced as under : "RECEIPT Received from Shri/Smt. .......................................................................................................... ................................................................. a sum of Rs. 2,24,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Only) IN CASH or vide Cheque No........... dated 24-4-1994 drawn on................., ............. Branch, as earnest money deposit as agreed above for the booking of a flat as mentioned above in the said proposed project. Promoter S.R. Dantal Sd. Promoter." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sumption would not arise under section 132(4A), but under some provisions of other laws, like the Indian Evidence Act, e.g., section 110 of that Act. When a presumption can be so raised under the provisions of another law and the application of the provisions of such other law is not expressly prohibited by any statute including the statute under which the assessee is being proceeded against, such presumption cannot be termed as having been raised under section 132(4A) and, hence, not permissible at law. The evidentiary value of the incriminating evidence found and seized in the course of search proceeding should then be examined and judged not with reference to the provisions of section 132(4A) but the other provisions in the allied law which are applicable to the proceedings under the Act. Therefore, the incriminating evidence which was found and seized in the course of search could be used against the assessee without any reference to the provisions contained in section 132(4A), provided such evidence was found to be relevant and material for the assessment of the assessee and the same had been put to him before its use against him at his assessment(s). In holding the above view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment order and also invited our attention to questions No. 32 and 33 put to the assessee in this regard. It was stated that the assessee denied having entered into any transactions pertaining to the said agreements. The learned Counsel also invited our attention to pages 261 and 278 of the assessee';s Paper Book, wherein the replies were filed with regard to these documents before the Assessing Officer and CIT respectively. The case of the assessee is that the agreements in question were given by Shreeganesh Developers to the assessee to raise finance for their project. However, according to the assessee, as the plot was reserved by Municipal Authorities for a garden, finance could not be arranged. It is further stated that apart from the said agreements, the Assessing Officer has no other evidence that the amounts in question were given by the assessee to Shreeganesh Developers. Reliance is placed upon the same decisions which are relied upon in respect of grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2. 20. The learned Departmental Representative invited our attention to the seized paper marked 84A and 84B, copy of which is available at page 396 of the Paper Book filed by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e A-3 and enclosed with the assessment order as Exhibit-III. At the end of the each of the agreement for allotment of flat there is a receipt duly signed by Shri S.R. Dantal on behalf of Shreeganesh Developers acknowledging the receipt of the amounts of Rs. 3,21,000, Rs. 4,44,000 and Rs. 3,59,000 respectively. These agreements/receipts were found from the premises of the assessee during the course of search and hence it is the normal presumption, though rebuttable, that the assessee after making the payments in question to Shreeganesh Developers kept the receipts in his custody. The assessee has not been able to rebut this presumption. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the addition of Rs. 11,24,000 made by the Assessing Officer is fully justified. The decision of the Jaipur Bench of ITAT in R.N. Ghiya';s case (supra) supports the case of the Revenue. As the receipts duly signed by Shri S.R. Dantal on behalf of Shreeganesh Developers indicating that the payments were received by Shreeganesh Developers were found from the custody of the assessee, it is the normal presumption that the assessee had made the payments to Shreeganesh Developers, though the name of the other party ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee in this regard." 23. The next addition of Rs. 4,50,000 is based upon seized document marked as Page 190 of Annexure A-4, copy of which is enclosed at Exhibit- V to the assessment order. The seized paper is not signed by anybody but indicates the calculation of ';Vasai Profit';. There is also indication that the seized papers belong to M/s. K.C. Builders and the share of the assessee is Rs. 4,50,000. The assessee';s share in ';Vasai Profit'; is indicated at 50% of Rs. 9,000.00 and after de-coding the figures the Assessing Officer has assumed that the sum of Rs. 9,000.00 should really be read as Rs. 9 lakhs. 24. The learned counsel of the assessee has contended that neither the assessee or M/s. K.C. Builders have any property at Vasai. It was stated that M/s. K.C. Builders had a property at Virar which the partners were unable to sell. Moreover, it is stated that the share of the assessee in M/s. K.C. Builders is 30% and not 50%. It is further stated that the rough sheet is not in the handwriting of the assessee. The learned counsel of the assessee took us through paragraph 14 of the assessment order and also pages 398-399 of the Paper Book, where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f account by K.C. Builders. We are inclined to accept the argument of the learned Departmental Representative that even if the assessee has no property at Vasai, he could be involved in any other business undisclosed to the department. As the paper is found from the custody of the assessee and bears the name of the assessee, it is the natural presumption that the paper belongs to the assessee, which indicates the ';Vasai profit'; and the assessee';s share therein. We also hold that the Hon';ble Supreme Court';s decision in V.C. Shukla';s case (supra), which pertained to the criminal proceedings is not relevant in the Income-tax proceedings, which are not strictly governed by the Rules of evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act. We also hold that the profit is not worked out on any presumption but it is based upon the seized incriminating paper. We, therefore, uphold the addition of Rs. 4,80,000. The appeal of the assessee, therefore, fails on this point. 27. The ground No. 9 reads as under : - "9. The Assessing Officer erred in holding that a sum of Rs. 5,16,500 allegedly being undisclosed rent income of the appellant, for the block period and erred in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the assessee had not made this submission as a ground in the original ground of appeal and no additional ground should be admitted and secondly, as per section 158BC, no deductions are admissible. 31. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case. The argument of the assessee that he does not own any property from which such huge rent can be received, has not been dislodged by the Assessing Officer nor any material has been brought out by him to link the seized paper with the rental income of the assessee. The seized rough sheet does not bear the name of the assessee nor does it indicate the name or address of the property from which the rent is alleged to be received. It seems to be working of the proposed project only. Therefore, keeping in view the various decisions quoted by the assessee, we hold that the addition cannot be made on the basis of rough/loose sheet, which cannot be linked to the source of income of the assessee. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 5,16,500 made by the Assessing Officer. As the addition has been deleted by us, the additional ground and alternative ground of appeal regarding th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l the addition has to be made, it should be of the figures mentioned in the seized papers, is not acceptable as de-coding has to be done in respect of the figures mentioned in the coded language. As pointed out by the Assessing Officer in para 6 of her order, the assessee has admitted that the entries are made in the coded language. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the amount mentioned as Rs. 4,496.52 in the seized paper is in fact the amount of Rs. 4,49,652 as interpreted by the Assessing Officer. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel are distinguishable in facts as the seized papers here are not dumb papers, but they indicate the amounts, dates and the calculation of interest, on the amounts concerned. As the papers are seized from the custody of the assessee, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer is not wrong in presuming that they relate to the assessee himself. We are of the opinion that the incriminating evidence, which is found and seized in the course of search, could be used against the assessee without any reference to provisions contained in section 132(4A), provided such evidence was found to be relevant and material for the assessment of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel of the assessee further contended that it can be seen from the seized paper that the Balance Sheet is not tallied and hence the reliability of the same has to be doubted. 39. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and to the facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the opinion that as some of the figures in the seized paper tally with the declared Balance Sheet of M/s. Gem Builders as on 31-3-1993, the seized paper cannot be brushed aside as not relevant to the assessment of the assessee. It shows the capital account of the assessee, who is a partner in M/s. Gem Builders. As the source of the capital has not been explained by the assessee, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition. However, as the capital to the extent of Rs. 1,64,818 has been declared in the Balance Sheet of M/s. Gem Builders as on 31-3-1993, we feel that the addition has to be reduced by this figure. We, therefore, restrict the addition to Rs. 26,58,590 (Rs. 28,23,408 minus Rs. 1,64,818). The other arguments for admission of the seized paper as evidence for the purposes of the assessment are the same as given in the preceding paragra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 43. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case. Though the seized paper does not bear the assessee';s name, yet as it is found from the custody of the assessee, it was for him to explain the entries made therein. The assessee has been duly confronted with the seized paper, but rather than explaining the entries therein, the assessee has given only evasive reply. As the seized paper gives details of the advancing of amount of Rs. 2 lakhs on interest and the working of interest has also been given on the seized paper, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer was within her right to presume that the amount was advanced by the assessee and the interest to the extent of Rs. 56,256 was also charged by the assessee. Though this paper does not bear the assessee';s name, yet it gives the amounts and the dates and the working of the interest. Therefore, this paper cannot be called a dumb paper. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel of the assessee are distinguishable in facts and do not support the assessee';s case. We, therefore, uphold the addition of Rs. 56,256 made by the Assessing Officer. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tended that the assessee does not know any Mr. Jain. It is further stated that no amount has been advanced on interest to any such person. Without prejudice to these arguments, it is stated that only a sum of Rs. 2,000 has been shown against the name of Jain. It is also contended that the seized paper is not in the handwriting of the assessee and hence the assessee is not liable to explain the entries made therein. 50. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative contended that the paper is seized from the custody of the assessee and some definite calculation of interest has been made therein date-wise aggregating to Rs. 25,000. It is contended that as the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the entries made in the seized paper, the addition made is justified and should be confirmed. 51. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case. The scrutiny of the seized paper reveals that on the left side the amounts advanced are given in the coded language and against two amounts advanced on 17-10-1988 and 3-12-1988 figures written are 1000 and 1000 and the name of the person is mentioned as Jain. The rig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aper (page 418 of the Paper Book) is the copy of account of a party of Gem Builders (P.) Ltd., where TDS has also been deducted. Hence, according to the learned Counsel, no additions can be made in the assessee';s hands. 55. The learned Departmental Representative invited our attention to Annexure A-4 to the assessment order and pages 418 and 420 of the assessee';s Paper Book. It is contended that the loans have been advanced by the assessee out of the undisclosed income on which interest has been received. Therefore the interest received has to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. 56. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case. As the assessee was duly confronted with the seized paper found from his custody, we are of the opinion that he was liable to explain the entries made therein. The natural presumption is that the entries made in the seized paper pertained to the assessee';s business and the interest earned by the assessee on the amounts advanced on loan has to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. There is no force in the argument of the learned Counsel of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urces because the assessee could not explain the entries in the seized papers. 59. The argument of the learned Counsel of the assessee is that the papers are not in assessee';s handwriting and the assessee does not know what are the calculations and they pertained to whom. Without prejudice to this argument, it is also contended that the amount in the seized papers which are written as Rs. 6,720.04 and Rs. 5,262.38 should be read as such and not Rs. 6,72,004 and Rs. 5,26,238. On the basis of the same reasons as given in the preceding grounds of appeal pertaining to loose papers, we confirm the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 60. Grounds No. 17, 18 and 19 read as under : - "17. The Assessing Officer erred in treating amounts of Rs. 2,61,769 and Rs. 16,67,922 as undisclosed income of the appellant includible in the assessment under section 158BC. 18. The Assessing Officer erred in not considering Long Term Capital Gain on sale of Capital Asset amounting to Rs. 1,52,400 for the assessment year 1994-95 separately, liable to tax @ 20%, apart from the fact that the same could be not included in the computation at all. 19. The Assessing Officer erred in not con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be treated as disclosed and not added in the block assessment. It is further contended that on the dividend income tax of Rs. 4,477 has also been deducted at source. 63. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative contended that provisions of section 158BB are very clear and as per sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 158BB, the income in respect of the assessment years has to be added in the block assessment where the due date for filing of the returns of income had expired but no returns of income were filed. It is also contended that the assessee did not have any income which was subject to TDS and hence the case laws relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable. It was stated that the assessee';s returns are much above the taxable limits. The learned Departmental Representative also contended that Standard Deduction and Deduction under section 80L are not admissible as per the scheme of the block assessment and no separate treatment can be given for taxing the capital gains. It is also stated that the decision of the Kerala High Court reported at CIT v. M.P. Ramachandran Nair (2000) 241 ITR 832pertained to the case where the income was below the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Standard Deduction in respect of salary income and Chapter VI-A deductions from the gross total income. The capital gains, if included in the income assessed in the regular assessment, will also be subject to deductions at the rate of 20% as per law. 65. Ground No. 20 is of general nature and no comment or adjudication is needed for the same. 66. The additional grounds A-1 and A-2 are of general nature and no adjudication is required in respect of the same. 67. The additional ground No. B-3 relating to statutory deductions from rental income has already been dealt with along with ground No. 9 and hence no further discussion is required in respect of the same. 68. Ground No. D-7 is of general nature and hence no adjudication or discussion is required in respect of the same. 69. Ground Nos. C-5 and 6 are reproduced as under : - "(C)Double Addition (5)Without prejudice to the original grounds of appeal and the additional grounds of appeal, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax erred on facts and in law in making additions for both the source of income as well as for the application of the said income. (6)The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax fai....