TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (2) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee could not, according to the Revenue, satisfactorily explain. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee Sh. D.K.Gupta submitted that the main paper which is termed as document No.43 by the revenue is a small piece of paper which bears names of Kanahiya Lal Om Parkash and Chanan Ram Barkat Ram and under each of the two names date of 26th April, 1971 with an amount of Rs. 10,000 is mentioned. He produced the photostat copy of the said paper for our perusal. He submitted that the said paper and other two papers marked as document Nos.45 and 56 which certain figures are mentioned which are detailed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue could not substantiate in any possible way that the said entries pertained to the assessee and were such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances, according to the learned Depatmental representative the addition of Rs. 20,000 was in order and placing his reliance on the orders of the two lower authorities he made his best efforts to persuade us to confirm the same. 4. After taking into consideration the rival submissions and careful perusal of facts on record and the photostat copies of the documents found in the course of search and seizure, we are unable to confirm the action of the Commissioner (Appeals). From perusal of chit on which following writing is available: "Kanhiya Lal Om Parkash 26th April, 1971 Rs. 10,000 Chanan Ram Barkat Ram 26th April, 1971 Rs. 10,000". It is clear that the above said writing neither indicates that the said amounts were loan or advance....