TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Several incriminating documents were recovered from the premises of the M/s. Phoenix Devcons Pvt. Ltd., Indore in which there was a reference of Mr. Pukhraj Soni. In a diary there was an entry in respect of amount given to Mr. Pukhraj Soni and, therefore, a notice was issued under Section 148 to the assessee and the case was re-opened as there was a reason to believe escapement of income of Rs. 2,50,00,000.00 and the interest thereon amounting to Rs. 9,37,500/-. After concluding the assessment, the Assessing Officer has issued an order dated 28.3.2014 and the assessee, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The appeal was against the assessment order passed under Section 148 of the Act and the appeal was allowed by an order dated 27.4.2015. 3. The department being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore and the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Department. Now the present appeal has been filed before this Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Paragraph 8 of the order passed by the Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17. From a plain reading of the Section it is manifest that to make an entry relevant thereunder it must be shown that it has been made in a book, that book is a book of account and that book of account has been regularly kept in the course of business. From the above Section it is also manifest that even if the above requirements are fulfilled and the entry becomes admissible as relevant evidence, still, the statement made therein shall not alone be sufficient evidence, still, the statement made therein shall not along be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. It is thus seen that while the first part of the section speaks of the relevancy of the entry as evidence, the second park speaks, in a negative way, of its evidentiary value for charging a person with a liability. It will, therefore, be necessary for us to first ascertain whether the entries in the documents, with which we are concerned, fulfil the requirements of the above section so as to be admissible in evidence and if this question is answered in the affirmative then only its probative value need be assessed. 18. 'Book' ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Keep in view the purpose for which the Act was brought into the statute book and its sweep, the words appearing in Section 34 have got to be given their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning, more so, when neither the context nor any principle of construction requires their restrictive meaning. While on this point we may refer to Section 209 of the Companies Act, 1956 which expressly lays down what 'books of account' to be maintained thereunder must contain and, therefore, the general meaning of the above words under the Act may not be applicable there. 26. In Mukundram (supra) after dealing with the word 'book' (to which we have earlier referred) the Court proceeded to consider what is meant by a 'book of account' under Section 34 and stated as under: "To account is to reckon, and I an unable to conceive any accounting which does not involve either addition or subtraction or both of these operations of arithmetic. A book which contains successive entries of items may be a good memorandum book; but until those entries are totalled or balanced, or both, as the case may be, there is no reckoning and no account. In the making of totals and striking of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd without whose knowledge the entry is made - liable cannot be ruled out the additional safeguard of insistence upon other independent evidence to fasten him with such liability, aha been provided for in Section 34 by incorporating the words such statements shall not alone be sufficient to charge any person with liability. 37. In Beni Vs. Bisan Dayal [ A. I. R 1925 Nagpur 445] it was observed tat entries in book s of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence of the transaction to which the entries relate an din absence of such evidence no relief can be given to the party who relies upon such entries to support his claim against another. In Hira Lal Vs. Ram Rakha [A. I. R. 1953 Pepsu 113] the High Court, while negativing a contention that it having been proved that the books of account were regularly kept in the ordinary course of business and that, therefore, all entries therein should be considered to be relevant and to have been prove, said that the rule as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017] 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 22, 24 and 27 has held as under:- 22. In case of Sahara, in addition we have the adjudication by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The order has been placed on record along with I.A.No.4. The Settlement Commission has observed that the scrutiny of entries on loose papers, computer prints, hard disk, pen drives etc. have revealed that the transactions noted on documents were not genuine and have no evidentiary value and that details in these loose papers, computer print outs, hard disk and pen drive etc. do not comply with the requirement of the Indian Evidence Act and are not admissible evidence. It further observed that the department has no evidence to prove that entries in these loose papers and electronic data were kept regularly during the course of business of the concerned business house and the fact that these entries were fabricated, non-genuine was proved. It held as well that the PCIT/DR have not been able to show and substantiate the nature and source of receipts as well as nature and reason of payments and have failed to prove evidentiary value of loose papers and electronic documents within the legal parameters. The Commission has al....