Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Income-Tax Officer vs Silk Museum on 25 May, 1987
Equivalent citations: [1988]27ITD392(AHD)
ORDER
M.A.A. Khan, Judicial Member
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 21-3-1985 whereby the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rajkot [Commissioner (Appeals)] deleted an addition of Rs. 1,40,000 made by the Income-tax Officer, Cir. II, Rajkot (the ITO) to the total income of the assessee as being investment made out of books from income from undisclosed sources. The controversy, which makes the sole ground in this appeal, arises under the following circumstances.
2. The respondent (the assessee) is a partnership firm dealing in sarees exclusively at Rajkot under the business name of M/s. Silk Museum. This firm has been doing its said business since Nov. 1, 1979 under a partnership deed dated Nov. 23, 1979. It consists of one male partner, Shri Amritlal Dhanji and three lady partners, viz., Smt. Chandanben Mukeshbhai, Smt. Meenaben Maheshkumar and Smt. Bhartiben Harshadkumar. Though the male partner contributed Rs. 50,000 towards his share capital and one lady partner contributed Rs. 9,000 each, yet, all the partners share the profits and losses of the business in equal proportion. The assessee maintains its accounts according to mercantile system of accounting. The assessment year under consideration is 1981-82 for which the accounting period ended with S.Y. 2036.
3. The assessee filed the return of its income on 17-7-1981 declaring total income at Rs. 98,200. On scrutiny of relevant books of account, the ITO noted that on the total sales of Rs. 15,84,308 the declared gross profit of Rs. 2,28,442 worked out at 14.4 per cent only. In the opinion of the ITO it was somewhat low in view of the exclusive nature of business of the assessee specially when the clientele of the assessee could only be from upper strata of society. He, therefore, made a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,000 thus thereby raising the G.P. to around 15 percent. The addition did not find favour with the Commissioner (Appeals) and was deleted. Revenue is not aggrieved in this behalf.
4. On further scrutiny, the 1TO noted that the male partner Shri Amritlal Dhanji introduced his share capital of Rs. 50,000 in the following manner:
Rs. 20,000 by cheque from Chandrana Art Rs. 30,000 by cash from Chandrana Art Doubting the source and on that ground the genuineness of the cash credit of Rs. 30,000 in the name of Shri Amritlal Dhanji partner, the ITO called for an explanation in that behalf and relevant evidence in support thereof. No explanation could be offered. The books of Chandrana Art negatived the withdraval of Rs. 30,000. The ITO rejected the assessee's version in the copy of accounts and added the aforementioned sum of cash credit to total income of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the ITO that the cash credit of Rs. 30,000 was not having a genuine source but declined to approve of the addition in that behalf on the ground that the same did not represent an income of the assessee from undisclosed sources but, instead, it was such an income of Shri Amritlal Dhanji to be taxed in his hands and that had already been done by the ITO in the individual assessment of the said partner. This matter too is not alive for our consideration in this appeal.
5. At the time of assessment proceedings the department appears to have come in possession of some information to the effect that for acquiring the business premises on rent the assessee-firm had paid certain amount by way of "pagri". The basis of such information seems to be that the business premises situated at Dharmen-dra Road, Rajkot, which was one of the busiest business centre in Rajkot city, previously it was in possession on M/s. Mansukh Stores, a partnership firm also dealing in cloth. How was it that the said partnership firm came to wind up its business and the landlord, Shri Jadavji Gopalji Parekh, HUF, admitted the assessee-firm to tenancy ? The ITO thought it proper to get the information verified. He, therefore, deputed his ward Inspector, Shri R.J. Vyas, to conduct necessary enquiry into the matter and report.
6. Accompanied with his colleague Shri R.L. Jadav, Inspectors IT Office, Morvi, Shri R.J. Vyas, Ward Inspector conducted necessary enquiries. In the course of his enquiry he contacted Shri Haresh Jadavji Parekh, karta of Jadavji Gopalji Parekh, HUF, the landlord. After winning over his initial hesitancy, Shri Vyas Inspector was successful in knowing from him (Harish Jadavji Parekh) that the assessee-firm had paid Rs. 1,60,000 in all for acquiring the possession of the shop on tenancy and that as he was to receive 25 per cent only of the said amount, he received Rs. 40,000. The rest of the 75 per cent balance amounting to Rs. 1,20,000 was to be received by the out-going tenant M/s. Mansukh Stores and the same was received by them. He declined to give his statement to that effect in writing but obliged Inspector Vyas by giving him the address of Shri Bhopat Rai Chhothalal Doshi, the husband of Smt. Vidyaben B. Doshi who was previously one of the two partners and subsequently sole proprietor of M/s. Mansukh Stores. Shri Vyas lost no time in contacting Shri Bhopat Rai C. Doshi.
7. Shri Bhopat Rai C. Doshi informed Shri Vyas Inspector that the firm M/s. Mansukh Stores consisted of two partners, viz., Shri Bhagwan Das Tribhuvan and Smt. Vidyaben B. Doshi with equal shares. This firm had been paying Rs. 25 only as monthly rent to Shri Hareshbhai J. Parekh for the last 25 to 30 years. On Posh Sud 10 S.Y. 2035 the partnership was dissolved and Smt. Vidyaben B. Doshi became the sole proprietor who carried the business up to Aso Vad Amas S.Y. 2035. Thereafter, the shop was vacated and possession was handed over to the landlord, Shri Hareshbhai. Faced with the probing and embarassing query with regard to receipt of any 'Pagri' amount Shri Doshi exhibited the natural inhibition and hesitation but when told that the department had already come in possession of such evidence Shri Doshi gave out that his wife had received Rs. 1,00,000 out of which Rs. 20,000 were paid to Shri Bhagwan Das Tribhuvan, the ex-partner, the information having thus been verified was submitted in his report by Shri Vyas Inspector to the ITO.
8. On receipt of the report of the Ward Inspector, the ITO thought it proper to examine Shri Harish Jadavji Parekh, the landlord and Shri Bhopat Rai C. Doshi, the husband of the outgoing tenant. Shri Parekh did not approve of the report but Shri Doshi did. Shri Doshi endorsed the version given by him before Shri Vyas Inspector and further told that his wife had in all received Rs. 1,20,000 out of which Rs. 20,000 were received by cheque towards cost of furniture and the rest in cash. He, further told that Rs. 40,000 were paid by the assessee-firm to Shri Parekh, the landlord. On looking to the Furniture Account in the books of the assessee, the ITO found the statement of Shri Doshi quite correct. The Furniture Account showed a sum of Rs. 20,000 as having been paid by cheque to Smt. Vidyaben C. Doshi of Mansukh Stores.
9. Encouraged with the result of his enquiry, the ITO called upon the assessee-firm to explain the things. By its letter dated 27-3-1984 the assessee denied to have paid any amount by way of 'Pagri' either to Shri Parekh or to Shri Doshi or his wife. Further, the assessee asked for the copies of the statements of the persons, intended or proposed to be used in evidence against it. It further requested for an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The ITO duly supplied the copies of the statements of the persons examined on oath by him. Initially he declined to give opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses for want of time but later on he gave such opportunity on directions from the IAC. Having done that the ITO proposed to make additions beyond rs. 1 lac., to the total income of the assessee and submitted the draft assessment order along with assessee's objections thereto the IAC. At the last stage of the proceedings the assessee appears to have come out with an affidavit of Smt. Vidyaben C. Doshi, the tenant, wherein, she had deposed that she had received no amount by way of 'Pagri' from the assessee. This version was not accepted by the authorities concerned in the presence of her husband's testimony on oath which got good support from asses-see's own account books. The ITO, therefore, made addition of Rs. 1,40,000 to the total income of the assessee as being investment made out of books from income from undisclosed sources. The ITO thus finalised the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at a total income of Rs. 2,76,000 as against of Rs. 98,200 returned. The assessee-firm took the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) by way of its appeal.
10. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention that the report of the Ward Inspector was based on hearsay evidence and as such was not admissible in evidence. He was further impressed by the argument that the out-going tenant was Smt. Vidyaben C. Doshi and not her husband Shri Bhopat Rai C. Doshi, and when the tenant herself had denied to have received any amount by way of 'Pagri' the contrary statement of her husband, again based on hearsay evidence, was of no value. The Commissioner (Appeals) thus accepted the position that addition of Rs. 1,40,000 was made on the basis of suspicion and surmises. He further observed that there was no entry in the books of account and held that there was no other evidence to support the addition, according to him, in the absence of documentary or substantial evidence it was not possible to come to the conclusion that the assessee had paid the pagri. For these reasons the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,40,000. Hence this appeal.
11. We have heard the parties at considerable langth and have gone through the record as was made available to us.
12. Mr. K.V. Dave, the learned Departmental Representative has argued with such industry that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to approach the case from a right angle and in correct perspective. Mr. Dave further urged that it was not proper on the part of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to have brushed aside the report of the Ward Inspector and the testimony of Shri Bhopat Rai C. Doshi on the supposed or assumed ground that they were based on hearsay evidence. The learned Departmental Representative stressed that the ITO was not bound by technical rules of law of evidence and at any rate the evidence collected by the ITO needed to be tested at the altar of satisfaction of a prudent mind before their outright rejection. Mr. Dave emphasised the necessity of appreciating the merits or demerits of a fact in issue in the totality of facts and circumstances of a given case. And in doing that, contended the learned Departmental Representative, the normal human conduct, the conditions prevailing in the society, the behavioural pattern of the parties concerned or involved, the situations they are placed in, should be taken into consideration before the absence or existence of a fact is finally approved or negatived. Mr. Dave pointed out that the testimony of Shri Bhopat Rai C. Doshi, duly tested with weapon of cross-examination disclosed facts which were not only in accordance with the normal behaviour and conduct of persons actively engaged in the pursuit of business achievements in this area of business but were also getting ample support from assessee's own account books, besides the report of the Ward Inspector. It was quite acceptable, quite believable, quite reliable. It was not to be outweighed by the worthless and highly belated so-called affidavit of a homely lady his wife. Mr. Dave thus urged for the restoration of incorrectly deleted addition of Rs. 1,40,000.
13. Contrary to the above, Mr. R.R. Raya, the learned counsel for the assessee supported the order under appeal tooth and nail. He led us through the written submissions of the assessee, as filed before the authorities below and the affidavit of Smt. Vidyaben C. Doshi to convince us that the addition made by the ITO was certainly based on suspicion and surmises and had no basis, factual or legal. Mr. Raya pointed out that any landlord getting Rs. 25 P.M. as rent for his property would readily agree to let it out to a tenant offering Rs. 400 P.M. The abnormal hike in the monthly rent, suggested Mr. Raya, totally negatived the theory of any underhead transaction of Pagri. Further, a middle aged lonely lady, worried about the failing health of her life partner, Shri Doshi, would prefer to look after her husband rather than to retain the relics of a broken partnership business. No wonder she parted with possession of the shop on her own. It is probable, it is reasonable, it is acceptable. The order under appeal, claimed Mr. Raya, calls for no interference.
14. Before we proceed to make a re-appraisal of the evidence or material on record in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties before us, we would like to observe that the nature of addition, sought to be made by the ITO to the total income of the assessee, was such as required of him to make his initial satisfaction before calling upon the assessee to offer any explanation in respect thereto. In other words, where some addition to the income of an assessee is sought to be made on the basis of certain information in the possession of the Department the degree of credibility and the extent of its truthfulness need to be judged by some known mode of enquiry before it is used against the assessee. If the result of enquiry verifies the truth in the information of the ITO may act upon the enquiry report. However, to be more on safe-side he may summon the evidence, relied upon by the enquiring officer, before him and examine the same for himself. Presumably all this is done or is likely to be done behind the back of the assessee, as technical rules of law of evidence do not apply to proceedings under the Act, the evidence so collected may be used by the ITO. Against the assessee. If the ITO intends or proposes to so use such evidence or material against the assessee, he must inform him of that. He should not only inform him of his such intention but must also ask him to offer his explanation, if any. If the material consists of certain statements of some witnesses examined behind the back of the assessee, the ITO should allow an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine all such witnesses or as many of them as the assessee, in his discretion may choose to do so. Tested thus the question of its reliability and acceptability is to be considered. If found prima facie reliable and acceptable burden on revenue shifts and onus stands discharged. It is now for the assessee to disarm the ITO by leading cogent and convincing evidence in rebuttal. A reasonable and plausible explanation may be treated as evidence in tax matters. Material thus collected or brought on record by the parties brings the stage of appreciation of evidence or material sought to be relied upon by the parties for their respective benefit.
15. Once the stage of appreciation of evidence is arrived at the question of burden of proof is rendered immaterial. For, inferences are to be drawn from and conclusions are to be arrived at the totality of the entire evidence on record. All the facts and circumstances of the case are to be taken into consideration. The cumulative effect of the entire material is to be considered. Of the whole lot of evidence or material on record the acceptable is to be relied upon. The unacceptable is to be rejected. And acceptability is to be judged at the altar of preponderance of probabilities. Probability is to be considered by the test of reasonableness. It should be the reasonableness of a prudent mind. It must appeal to the reasons of a normal human being. It must fit in the facts and circumstances of the given case. It must be judged in the light of conditions prevailing in the society. It must get approval from the normal human conduct. It must be in accordance with the behavioural pattern of persons engaged in that particular field of activity.
16. The test of reasonableness assumes all the more importance in the administration of tax-justice for the obvious reason that technical rules of law of evidence are not applicable hereto. Herein evidence or material for consideration oral or documentaryis received or admitted to without the necessity of formal proof and without undergoing the rigours of ardous procedure of observing the avoidable technical formalities. But the inapplicability of technical rules of law of evidence to tax-proceedings does not adversely affect the powersnay duties of the ITO to collect relevant material. In fact, J.C. Shah, J. of the Supreme Court in C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT [1962] 45 ITR 206, saw in such inapplicability of the rules of law of evidence a door wide-open to the ITO to collect materials to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. For that reason their Lordships found no mistake committed by the Tribunal in relying upon the statement of two witnesses, recorded by the ITO in the absence of assessee, and in rejecting those tested by the AAC by the test of cross-examination. Obviously, such a treatment by the Tribunal to the statement of the two witnesses was approved on the ground of reliability and acceptability of the testimony of those witnesses. Therefore, the test of reliability of the statement of a witnesses does not lie in the cross-examination but in its credibility and truthfulness, in its spontaneity, in its naturality and in its closeness to probability. And that makes the necessity of evaluation and appreciation of the evidence or material in tax-matters all the more necessary. It is such necessity of appreciation of evidence that makes Mankad, J of Gujarat High Court to advise the Tribunal in CIT v. Chandravilas Hotel [1987] 32 Taxman 53 not to adopt an illegal approach in appreciating the evidence on record by ignoring the settled position of law that rules of evidence do not apply to assessment proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
17. We had to enter into the avoidable lengthy exercise of pointing out at the proper method or procedure for collecting material by the ITO to facilitate the assessment and thereafter adopting the accepted principles governing appreciation of evidence in tax-matters for the obvious reason that we noticed that in the instant case the ITO appears to have followed the established procedure or method for collecting material and then to have adopted the accepted principles of appreciating such evidence in arriving at his conclusions. But in appeal the learned Commissioner (Appeals) brushed aside the evidence collected by the ITO on the ground of that being simply 'local' and 'hearsay' and consequently 'inadmissible in evidence' and rejected his conclusions as being based on 'suspicion and surmises'. Is that really so ? Let us examine.
18. As is evident from the detailed narration of facts, made hereinabove, the disputed addition of Rs. 1,40,000 had its origin in the information with the department. Such information would have certainly not risen above the level of 'rumour', 'suspicion' or 'surmiso', by whatever name it be called but for certain facts attending on it and the test of verification given by the ITO to it. In order to appreciate the basis of this information we shall have to keep in our minds that the shop in question situated in one of the busiest business locality of the City of Rajkot, the assessee had started its business therein only recently and the ITO also stationed at Rajkot. For all these facts the department could have been in possession of an information to the effect that the asses-see had obtained the possession of the shop by making payment of certain amount by way of Tagri' to the out-going tenant and/or the landlord. Thus the information had a sound footing prompting the ITO to make enquiries into the matter. And that he did. He instructed his Ward Inspector Shri Vyas to do the needful. He must observe that in so conducting a private enquiry the ITO consciously or unconsciously, followed a procedure approved by Shah, J. of Supreme Court in C. Vasantlal & Co.'s case (supra). It was open to the ITO to collect material in that way. Proceeding further we find that the Ward Inspector first contacted the landlord of the assessee. That was most natural on the part of the Ward Inspector. The landlord, Shri Harish Jadavjl Parekh was a resident of Morvi. It was, therefore, quite reasonable and proper for the Ward Inspector to have contacted the Inspector of that place, Shri R.L. Jadav and to have associated him in the enquiry. Then after obtaining the necessary information about his family and family's property, including the shop in question, the Ward Inspector questioned Shri Parekh about the receipt of any amount by him from the assessee by way of Pagri. An affirmative answer could have exposed Shri Parekh both to tax liability as well as penal liability and therefore hesitation on his part, especially being an educated Government Servant, was but natural. At that stage Shri Vyas Inspector administered a psychological dose to Shri Parekh by telling him that the Department already possessed information in that behalf. We have already pointed out that the Department was in good position to possess such information. Moreover, the entry of payment of Rs. 20,000 to the outgoing tenant by cheque was there in assessee's Furniture Account. Thus, the dose administered could have the desired effect which it did. We have pointed out that Shri Parekh them came out with all the disclosure of relevant facts. The disclosure made by him fitted in the facts and circumstances of the case as would be seen on latter discussion.
19. Now after obtaining the address of the outgoing tenant's husband from Shri Parekh, the landlord, the Ward Inspector contacted Shri Bhopat Rai C. Doshi. The Inspector administered the same dose to him. Now he was better armed than before. The dose worked, Shri Doshi vomited all the relevant facts as mentioned earlier. The question is could these witnesses have stated those facts ? If so, was all that stated by them based on truth ? To our minds, yes.
20. Shri Parekh was the landlord of the assessee and by virtue of his that position he was the best informed person in this matter. It is the admitted position that prior to assessee's occupying the premises in question the same had been in possession of Mansukh Stores for the last 25 or 30 years at a monthly rent of Rs 25 only. Shri Doshi himself was a man of business. Mansukh Stores was being run as a partnership business. The partnership was dissolved on Posh Sud 10 S.Y. 2035 and thereafter the sale proprietorship in the name of Smt. Vidyaben B. Doshi was carried on upto Aso Vad Amas S.Y. 2035 only. It is a thing of common knowledge and experience that more often than not businessman carry on more than one business in the names of their women folk and minor or major kiths and kins, though in reality such businessmen are themselves the sole supervisors of such business activities. In fact Shri Doshi has stated on oath that he used to look after the affairs of the business of Mansukh Stores. In our social and family set up that is not at all abnormal. Rather it is most natural and according to normal human conduct and behaviour. Judge thus there is no escape from the conclusion that Shri Parekh and Shri Doshi were the best persons to be directly affected by any change in possession of the premises in question. As such they were the best persons to be in possession of all the relevant informations.
21. Now in order to carry out the change in possession of a tenanted property in favour of another proposed tenant a voluntary or unvoluntary triangle of three persons must be formed. If voluntary, the outgoing, the incoming tenants and the landlord should unite on certain amicably settled proposals. The outgoing tenant shall not vacate the premises without good gains, benefit or reasons to him. If he vacates, he shall have to deliver the possession to none else but the landlord. In his turn the landlord would not admit the incoming tenant to fresh tenancy without any gain or benefit to him. That is the normal human conduct of persons engaged in such activities these days. Since vacation of premises by the outgoing tenant is the main factor in the transaction he is to receive the lion's share. And that is what happened. That is what Shri Parekh and Shri Doshi stated to the Ward Inspector. Shri Parekh told that he was to get 25 per cent of the Pagri amount and that he received that. Shri Doshi received the rest. The facts stated by these two directly concerned persons fully fit in the theory advanced by revenue and inspire full confidence in us. We hold that both these witnesses did state to Shri Vyas, Inspector what is mentioned therein in the two reports of Shri Vyas. The information given by them was entirely true, true to their own personal knowledge. The information so furnished by them was even subsequently endorsed by Shri Doshi in his statement on oath recorded by the ITO on a subsequent day. The reports of Shri Vyas Inspector were thus not based on 'local information' or 'hearsay evidence'. It was no bundle of lies. It contained truth and for that reason could have been acted upon by the ITO we fail to dismiss these valuable piece of material evidence as being baseless.
22. As stated above Shri Doshi reiterated his stand before the Inspector in his sworn statement before the ITO. In that statement he pointed out that a sum of Rs. 20,000 was received by his wife through cheque. Assessee's Furniture Account corroborated that fact. Shri Doshi had farther told that Rs. 20,000 were paid to the Ex-partner. Obviously it, was quite logical and reasonable to do so in order to appease an Ex-partner, especially when much time had not passed to the dissolution of partnership firm. He had further stated that the landlord had received a sum of Rs. 40,000 in the transaction. The probability of truth in this statement has already been judged above. Moreover, when Shri Doshi was subjected to cross examination by Shri Raya Advocate, his testimony on this point was not at all challenged. There is no reason to discard the version of Shri Doshi in that behalf.
23. The so-called affidavit of Smt. Vidyaben C. Doshi should not detain us from arriving at the truth. We must state at the very outset that whereas the two reports of Shri Vyas Inspector and the statement on oath of Shri Parekh inspire confidence for their spontaneity and detailed account of the transactions, the affidavit of Smt. Vidyaben Doshi lacks such spontaneity and suffers from inordinate delay robbing it of its truthfulness. Shri Parekh, landlord was contacted by Shri Vyas, Inspector on 23-3-1984 and the same day or on the following day Shri Doshi was also questioned. Both spoke almost in the same language at that point of time. Shri Doshi was examined on oath on 26-3-1984 and he endorsed the version given on 23/24-3-1984 to Shri Vyas. Shri Parekh did not. It was only on 14-9-1984 that Shri Doshi was cross-examined. On that day some variations were tried to be brought in his testimony. He appears to have been made to say that his wife was a partner of Mansukh Stores for 4 or 5 years only and that he himself had no relations with that business. On the fact of it such version can be rejected outright in view of his earlier stand and almost the established position regarding the duration of tenancy and his relations with his wife. Again, he was made to state that he was a Diabetic, a patient of High Blood Pressure and expanded heart. However, in his re-cross (re-examination) he admitted to be travelling by bus and looking after his business at Sardha. Even in cross he stated that the earlier statement was signed by him end that his wife had told him to have received Rs. 1,20,000. Reading his statement as a whole we have no hesitation in holding that his earlier statement recorded on 26-3-1984 was quite reliable and trustworthy whereas in cross-examination he apparently aided with the assessee thus bringing inherent infirmities in his subsequent testimony. We accept and rely upon his earliest version and reject the later.
24. Having seen that even the cross-examined statement of Shri Doshi failed to damage Revenue's case which stood fully proved and established, the affidavit of Smt. Vidyaben Doshi was filed on 18-9-1984. On the face of it, it was highly belated and after thought. That apart, it was not acceptable for more than one reasons. In one breath she deposed that she did not know the assessee at all but in the second she admitted to have received Rs. 20,000 from the assessee on account of the cost of furniture. Perhaps the draftsman of her affidavit realised that the documentary proof of payment of Rs. 20,000 by cheque and the entry to that effect in assessee's account books would fatally damage lady's statement in affidavit. In fact, it was quite surprising that a new entrant in Saree business, having started such business with a capital of Rs. 77,000 and having procured furniture worth over Rs. 1 lakh would think of purchasing the used Takia and Gaddi and wooden cupboard, belonging to the outgoing tenant for Rs. 20,000. Any way, we find the affidavit of Smt. Vidyaben Doshi totally false and quite worthless. It does not adversely effect, nor can it do, the overwhelming positive evidence in support of the payment of Rs. 1,60,000 by the assessee to the landlord and the outgoing tenant.
25. On our appreciation of the entire material and evidence on record we hold that the assessee-firm had in fact, paid Rs. 40,000 to the landlord Shri Parekh and Rs. 1,00,000 to the outgoing tenant Smt. Vidyaben Doshi by way of Pagri and that such investment of Rs. 1,40,000 was made out of books from income from undisclosed sources. We would, therefore, vacate the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore that of the 1TO in this behalf.
26. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Addition of Rs. 1,40,000 from income from undisclosed sources, to the total income of the assessee is accordingly restored.