1982 (2) TMI 123

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, 1961, entries of which the assessee 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entries mentioned therein. Under the circumstances, 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 tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e certain entries which could be inferred from the said papers seized in the course of search and seizure might not have been made by the assessee. But when we go to adjudicate the issue whether an addition on that basis and that too of Rs. 20,000 can be made and sustained, we are afraid we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Depatmental representative and reverse the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is not that for the said papers which were termed as 'documents' by the Revenue, the assessee did not come forward with any explanation and it even offered that the same may be verified by the ITO by summoning the parties. In the absence of explanation which was summarily rejected by the ITO, the parties were not called ....