Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Ajay Sharma vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)101TTJ(DELHI)1065
ORDER
R.V. Easwar, Vice President
1. This appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the block assessment made under Section 158BC of the IT Act on 30th July, 2002. The assessee is a cricketer who represented India both in test cricket and one-day games. There was a search under Section 132 of the Act in his residential premises on 20th July, 2000, as part of the search on some prominent cricket players and individuals who were suspected to be involved in betting and match-fixing or were considered to be close associates of players indulging in these activities. On the basis of the materials collected during the search and on the basis of the CBI report dt. 30th Nov., 2000, regarding match-fixing allegations and the report dt. 24th Nov., 2000, of the Madhavan Commission, and also relying on the statements made by the assessee during and after the search, the AO completed the block assessment determining the total undisclosed income for the block period at Rs. 53,01,738. This figure included an addition of Rs. 23,33,000 as receipts for match-fixing activity and several other additions for investment in properties, unexplained expenditure, unexplained credits and so on and so forth. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) being only partly successful, a further appeal was filed to the Tribunal on several grounds and they are discussed and decided in the following paragraphs.
2. While deciding the various grounds taken in the appeal, we have taken into consideration, as we are bound to, the orders of the IT authorities, the facts marshalled therein, the rival contentions made elaborately before us, the contents of the paper books filed both by the assessee and the Department and the authorities and precedents to which our attention was drawn.
3. The first ground, which is in two parts, is directed against the addition of Rs. 23,33,000 made on account of receipts from match-fixing. The AO adverted to the reference made by the Ministry of Culture, Youth Affairs and Sports to the CBI to conduct enquiries into the allegations of match-fixing going on regarding test and one-day matches and the role played by cricketers, punters, bookmakers (bookies) and related persons. The CBI prepared a report on 31st Oct., 2000, which was made public the very next day, in which the allegations were confirmed. Prominent amongst the various names mentioned in the report was the name of one M.K. Gupta, bookie, popularly known as "MK" in cricketing circles. The CBI recorded a statement from MK on 28th June, 2000. The statement of the present assessee was also recorded by the CBI on 28th July, 2000. Both these statements were annexed to the Madhavan Commission's report. On the basis of these reports and statements, the AO concluded that the involvement of the assessee in cricket match-fixing dealings was conclusively proved. He has made elaborate references to these reports and the statement made by the assessee before the CBI in paras 2.3 and 2.4 of the block assessment order and for the sake of brevity they are not reproduced here. He has also referred, in fairness to the assessee, to the fact that by letter dt. 8th Aug., 2001, the assessee has denied all such receipts contending that there is no evidence in support thereof. He has rejected the contention, referring specifically to the fact that Ajay Gupta, one of the bookies involved, had sponsored the visits of the assessee to the UK and US which "clearly establishes beyond doubt his close nexus with the bookies" and that a bill of Muskan Travels, seized during the search of the assessee's residence, and the subsequent enquiries made by him conclusively proved that the assessee and his family undertook the trip in May-June, 1999, and that it was sponsored by Ajay Gupta. The AO ultimately held that preponderance of probability is sufficient to establish a finding and strict proof, as required in criminal proceedings, is not required in Revenue proceedings and on this basis held that the amount of Rs. 23,33,000 was to be added as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The details of the amount are given in para 2.4 of the assessment order. In all, 7 amounts are mentioned. They are as under:
Sl. Year From Amount (Rs.) Reason
No.
1. 1995 Mukesh Gupta 15,000 For purchase of car.
2. 1995 -do- 5,00,000 For introduction to
Azharuddin.
3. 1996 -do- 3,00,000 Manipulation of ground
at Delhi.
4. 1998 Ajay Gupta 5,00,000 For introduction to
Azharuddin
5. 1998 -do- 5,00,000 Share of Sanjay Anand
6. 1995 Azharuddin/ 5,00,000 For helping Azhar in his
Sangita Bijlani match-fixing
7. 1995 Ajay Jadeja 18,000 Paid to Mukesh Gupta for
Ajay Jageja
Total : 23,33,000
4. On appeal, the assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the addition is based on mere allegations and there is no evidence unearthed during the search to conclusively prove the receipt of money on account of match-fixing, that no opportunity was given to the assessee to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied on by the CBI and the Madhavan Commission and, therefore, the additions ought to be deleted. The CIT(A) rejected the contention, holding that even in block assessment proceedings, the AO is entitled to act on the basis of "materials" as contrasted with "evidence" to produce which is the duty of the assessee, that "material" is wider than "evidence", that the only condition is that the "material" relied on by the AO should be relevant to the addition, that the AO is not bound by technical rules of evidence and can act on the basis of materials, that though the statements were not recorded in proceedings under the IT law, they were nonetheless material on which the AO can rely, that the assessee himself had admitted the fact that he received monies from MK and others for match-fixing and, therefore, the AO was perfectly justified in adding the amount of Rs. 23,33,000 as match-fixing amounts.
5. The assessee is in further appeal. The main contention advanced on his behalf is that no evidence has been found relating to match-fixing allegations against the assessee "as a result of the search" as required by Section 158BC, that the addition is based on the statement of the assessee before CBI which is uncorroborated, that the report of the Madhavan Commission which is only an opinion given by an individual on the basis of some preliminary investigations which can at best be only a starting point for further probe, that the statement made by the assessee before the AO on 12th Sept., 2000, only shows that the assessee may be having links with Ajay Gupta but cannot constitute evidence on the basis of which it can be concluded that the assessee was being remunerated for alleged match-fixing activity, that even the statement dt. 6th Nov., 2000, was made before the Investigation Wing of the Department and was not corroborated and that the addition, in these circumstances, was based merely on suspicion which cannot be permitted. It was submitted that the assessee has not admitted any receipt of money for match-fixing. The material referred to by the AO in support of the addition cannot form the basis of a block assessment as it has not been found during the search conducted under Section 132. Our attention was invited to the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manoj Prabhakar v. Asstt. CIT (2004) 84 TTJ (Del) 625, in which an addition for match-fixing receipts made on the identical materials (CBI report, Madhavan Commission report, statement of the assessee, Manoj Prabhakar, etc.) was cancelled on the ground that these were not materials gathered during the search or cannot constitute evidence found as a result of the search and that the assessee's statement cannot also be considered to be evidence found during the search. Considerable emphasis was laid on the principle of judicial discipline and consistency and it was submitted that the facts being identical, there would be no justification to take a different view in the present case, the facts and evidence/material being identical.
6. On the other hand, the learned CIT Departmental Representative Mr. B.N. Verma, stoutly defended the assessment and filed a paper book in support of his submissions. He filed a copy of the statement of MK made before the CBI and submitted that the statement contained enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the assessee received monies for match-fixing. He contended that the report of the CBI is a public document on which the AO can rightly place reliance in support of the addition. He pointed out that the assessee was confronted with the contents of the report of the CBI on 6th Nov., 2000, when a statement was recorded from him and thus the assessee has been given an opportunity of knowing and explaining the evidence against him in deference to the rules of natural justice. As regards the assessee's links with Ajay Gupta, Mr. Verma pointed out that the bill of Muskan Travels, seized during the search, established the links and, therefore, it was permissible to draw the inference that the assessee did receive monies from him for match-fixing. According to Mr. Verma, the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission were "material" collected by the AO after the search and is relatable to the evidence gathered during the search within the meaning of Section 158BB(1) and, therefore, he was entitled to rely upon them for the purpose of making an assessment of the match-fixing receipts. Mr. Verma also relied on the statement of the assessee made before the CBI (copy filed) in which the assessee was alleged to have made an admission that he was indulging in match-fixing for monetary consideration.
7. In support of the above submissions, the learned CIT (Departmental Representative) relied on the following judgments:
(a) Pullangode Rubber & Production Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
(b) Thiru John Besides the above arguments, the learned CIT (Departmental Representative) strongly relied on the order of the CIT(A).
8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed on record and contents of the paper books filed by both sides. We have also perused carefully the statements of the assessee given before the CBI as well as before the IT authorities. On considering the above and comparing them with the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manoj Prabhakar (supra), we find that on the preliminary issue regarding the use of the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission and the statements made by the assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act for the purpose of making an assessment under Section 158BC, the matter rests covered by the above decision of the Tribunal. The relevant portion of the order is from para 10 to para 14. The Tribunal has referred to the fact that the addition for match-fixing receipts has been made, inter alia, on the basis of Mukesh Gupta's statement that Manoj Prabhakar promised him to introduce to other international players and some Ranji Trophy players against a payment of a sum of money. In para 11, the Tribunal has noted that the addition was confirmed by the CIT(A) "after making reference to the report of CBI and after drawing certain inferences". In para 12, the Tribunal has noted the submission of the assessee that "the addition is not based on any evidence or material found as a result of search and, therefore, the additions in the block assessment and particularly in view of provisions of Sections 158B(b) and 158BB(1) are not justified" and that "no question was put to the assessee relating to this issue at the time of search or thereafter". In the same paragraph, there is reference to the CBI report, dt. 31st Oct., 2000 and Madhavan Commission report, dt. 24th Nov., 2000, which are the same in the case before us. Having noted the evidence on the basis of which the addition for match-fixing was made and the arguments of the assessee, the Tribunal held in para 14 as under:
After going through the entire material, we find force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee. In the block assessment, undisclosed income can be worked out on the basis of the material found during the course of search. In the present case, no incriminating document or other evidence was found during the course of search from the possession of the assessee to establish link between bookies and players. Further, the addition has been made on the basis of statement of Mr. Mukesh Gupta, but neither the copy of his statement was provided to the assessee nor was he confronted against the same, and, therefore, the evidence against which the assessee was not confronted cannot be taken into consideration because such procedure is against the settled rules of natural justice. In our view, therefore, the addition made on the basis of statement of Mukesh Kumar Gupta or on estimate basis cannot be upheld. Accordingly, ground taken by the assessee is allowed and the addition of Rs. 9,65,000 sustained by the learned CIT(A) is deleted.
It has thus been held that the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission, which formed the basis of the addition for match-fixing receipts, cannot be relied upon for making the additions as they were not evidence found during the search. In the present case also, no evidence was found during the search of the premises of the assessee to establish that he received any consideration in money for match-fixing. But, what the CIT(A) has held and what the learned CIT (Departmental Representative) contended was that the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission can constitute material or information as are available with the AO and hence can form the basis of the addition. We are unable to accept the submission, which is based on the amendment made to Section 158BB(1) by the Finance (No. .2) Act, 1998, with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1995, since it gives effect only to the first part of the amendment and ignores the second part thereof, which is perhaps the more important part. The second part of the amendment makes it a condition that the material or information available with the AO after the search must be "relatable to such evidence", meaning thereby that they must relate to some material collected during the search. But, if no material was collected during the search to show that the assessee received money for match-fixing, then the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission cannot be relied upon as material or information "relatable to such evidence" in the block assessment. In the case before us, a perusal of the assessment order shows that no such evidence was collected during the search to show that the assessee was taking money for fixing cricket matches. The AO has almost entirely relied on the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission for the purpose of making the addition. He has also referred to the statements of the assessee made before the CBI and the IT authorities during the search. So far as the statements made before the IT authorities are concerned, the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of Manoj Prabhakar says that they cannot constitute evidence found during the search for the purpose of making the block assessment. The statements made by the assessee and Mukesh Gupta before the CBI or the Madhavan Commission also stand on the same footing, in our opinion. Those statements only constitute the basis for the reports of the above authorities (CBI and Madhavan Commission). In these circumstances, the ruling of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manoj Prabhakar (supra) fully applies to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, hold that the addition for alleged match-fixing receipts cannot be supported. We delete the same.
9. The second ground is directed against the addition of Rs. 5,81,607 as amount received from BCCI/DDCA/Ranji Trophy. During the search, documents showing cricketing receipts from BCCI, etc. were seized. The AO conducted post-search enquiries from DDCA, BCCI, etc. and noted that except for the asst. yr. 1991-92 the assessee did not declare any cricketing receipts in his returns. The total amount received from BCCI, DDCA, etc for playing matches, according to the AO, was Rs. 8,19,847. These receipts were not shown in the returns and, therefore, the assessee was asked to clarify. The assessee would seem to have stated that the amounts were in the nature of reimbursement of expenses and fees from BCCI towards representing India in tests and one-day cricket matches in India and abroad. He claimed that they were exempt in terms of a circular issued by the CBDT on 26th Nov., 1981. He also stated that some of the amounts received from BCCI were credited to his bank account during the financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The AO however noted that they were not disclosed in the regular returns. In the asst. yr. 1991-92, in which year the assessee declared the receipts in the return, the assessee had claimed deduction of 50 per cent for expenses in terms of the above circular. The AO agreed that the amount received and declared in the return for the asst. yr. 1991-92 cannot be considered in the block assessment, but as regards the other receipts relating to the other years, he held that they have to be dealt with in the block assessment.
10. Having held so, he proceeded to examine the question whether the assessee is a professional cricketer and concluded that he was and was, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the circular which was applicable only to amateur cricketers. He further noted that the circular issued on 26th Nov., 1981, had been withdrawn by another Instruction No. 1945 issued on 22nd Sept., 1997. It would appear that the assessee had claimed that the amounts received represented expenditure reimbursed, but the AO found that the assessee was in receipt of allowances for meeting the expenditure separately and, therefore, concluded that the assessee was not separately entitled to any deduction for expenses against the fee receipts. He, therefore, brought the amount of the receipts to tax in the block assessment.
11. The CIT(A) agreed in principle with the AO, but so far as the amount to be assessed is concerned, excluded "an amount of Rs. 2,38,240 representing logo money, prize money and bonus, and confirmed the addition of the balance of Rs. 5,81,607. He further directed the AO to amend the assessment order to exclude what was declared by the assessee as undisclosed income.
12. We have considered the matter and we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the IT authorities. It is not denied that the materials seized during the search indicated that the assessee was in receipt of moneys from BCCI, DDCA, etc. for playing cricket matches. It is also not the case of the assessee before us that he is not a professional cricketer. The argument advanced was that there is no effective addition and that at any rate disallowance of expenditure is not permissible in a block assessment. If there is no effective addition, then obviously the assessee cannot have any grievance. As regards expenditure, the AO has rightly held that the circular of the Board is not applicable to the assessee's case, he being a professional, and hence not entitled to any deduction against the receipts. We agree with the view taken by the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground.
13. The third ground is directed against the addition of Rs. 30,000 sustained by the CIT(A) out of the addition of Rs. 4,05,000 on account of fees for paying in other cricket matches. The AO jotted down a list of matches played by the assessee as "unofficial" matches during the block period and asked the assessee to inform how much fees he received for playing such matches. The assessee relied on the Circular No. 1432 issued on 26th Nov., 1981, and also stated that he did not remember the amount of fee or prize money. The AO estimated Rs. 15,000 for each match and for 27 matches, added Rs. 4,05,000.
14. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the money received upto September, 1997, cannot be taxed and only a sum of Rs. 30,000 for the asst. yrs. 2000-01 and 2001-02 can be taxed as undisclosed income.
15. We have considered the matter. The reason why the CIT(A) held that the money received upto September, 1997, cannot be taxed is that it was on 22nd Sept., 1997, that the earlier Circular No. 1432 issued in 1981 was withdrawn by the CBDT and that in the earlier circular there was no distinction made between professional and non-professional cricketers, with the result that the exemption was available upto September, 1997. He has, therefore, held the receipts upto that month cannot be taxed and only Rs. 30,000 relating to the asst. yrs. 2000-01 and 2001-02 can be taxed as undisclosed income. However, the basic question is whether any incriminating material or evidence was seized during the search to show that the assessee was in receipt of such monies. The answer should be in the negative because no such material or evidence is adverted to in the block assessment order. All that the AO has said is that a list of unofficial matches in which the assessee played was given to him by the Investigation Wing on 10th Oct., 2000, which is after the date of search. This information can be used by the AO only if some evidence had been unearthed during the search in this regard, so that it can be related to such evidence within the meaning of the amended Section 158BB(1). In the absence of any evidence unearthed during the search, the AO cannot make use of the details given by the Investigation Wing. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 30,000. The ground is allowed.
16. Ground No. 4 is directed against the addition of Rs. 1,05,000 sustained by the CIT(A) out of the addition of Rs. 2,10,000 made by the AO on account of receipts from Padiham Cricket Club ("PCC") of England. The claim of the assessee, rejected by the AO and the CIT(A), is that the entire amount related to expenditure on account of boarding and lodging and hence not taxable. During the search, a work permit allowing the assessee to play in England for PCC was found and seized. A contract of employment dt. 4th Feb., 2000, was also seized. The AO noted therefrom that the salary of the assessee was 3,500 pounds. When the assessee was asked as to the accountability of the receipt, he stated on affidavit that the receipt was in the nature of reimbursement of the expenses on boarding and lodging and did not have any element of income. Another affidavit was also filed stating that the amount was paid to him on weekly basis after deduction of all applicable taxes. The AO was of the view that the two affidavits were contradictory to each other, since if there was no income element in the receipt, there would have been no liability to deduct taxes. He, therefore, held that the amount of 3,500 pounds was taxable in the financial year 2000-01. In the absence of any proof of payment of taxes in UK by way of deduction at source, he refused to give credit for any TDS. The entire amount, converted into Indian rupees, came to Rs. 2,10,000 which was brought to tax.
17. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that that the facts showed that the assessee received monies for the exercise of his profession and so the amount was taxable, but held that the gross amount cannot be taxed and some allowance has to be made for expenses, which he estimated at 50 per cent of the gross receipt and thus sustained an addition of Rs. 1,05,000.
18. The argument of the assessee before us is that the amount was received by way of reimbursement of expenses and hence not income, that even the contract with the PCC confirmed this, that since the assessee was out of India for 22 weeks from April, 2000, to September, 2000, he could not have disclosed the amount as income even assuming that it was his income and that at any rate according to Section 158BA(3) the income is assessable only in the year 2001-02. The learned CIT (Departmental Representative), on the other hand, placed very strong reliance on the decision of the CIT(A) and his reasoning.
19. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) requires no interference. We have seen the work permit which is in the paper book which says that the "salary/remuneration $ 3,500 in total". We have also examined the contract of employment with PCC dt. 4th Feb., 2000, which is also compiled in the paper book. In all, there are 8 clauses in it, none of which speaks of any payment to the assessee. However, Clause 2 says that the assessee "is to make his own way from his home to all league and cup fixtures", which suggests that expenditure on conveyance will have to be borne by the assessee himself. But, the expenditure referred to in this clause as well as other incidental expenditure incurred to earn the remuneration have been taken care of by the CIT(A) by estimating 50 per cent of the fees of pounds 3,500. No case has been made out for further relief. We, therefore, uphold the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground.
20. The fifth ground is directed against the addition of Rs. 60,000 sustained by the CIT(A). The case of the assessee is that the income belongs to his wife for services rendered by her and has been duly accounted for in her return of income filed for the relevant financial year. In the course of her statement made under Section 132(4), the assessee's wife, Smt. Sanjana Sharma, stated that she had received the above amount from a firm by name Video Track, owned by her neighbour, Sh. Navin Kohli, for rendering administrative services. But, Mr. Kohli would appear to have stated that it was the assessee who rendered some services to his firm and requested him (Kohli) to pay the remuneration to his (assessee's) wife since he cannot accept any remuneration, being a Government employee. The AO, after referring to the statements of Mr. Kohli and the wife of the assessee, came to the conclusion that the amount was due to the assessee for services rendered by him to Video Track and, therefore, the same was includible in the block assessment in two years--Rs. 40,000 for the asst. yr. 2000-01 and Rs. 20,000 for the asst. yr. 2001-02. The CIT(A) having confirmed the same, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
21. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the addition cannot be made in a block assessment, since no material or evidence has been seized during the search to show that the amount was paid to the assessee for services rendered by him to Video Track. It is only on the basis of statements made by the assessee's wife and Mr. Kohli during the search that the AO has come to the conclusion that the amount is taxable in the assessee's hands, disbelieving the claim of the assessee. This is not a matter that can be tackled in a block assessment and is perhaps to be dealt with only in the regular assessment. We, therefore, delete the addition and allow the ground.
22. The sixth ground is directed against the addition of Rs. 53,000 sustained by the CIT(A) out of an addition of Rs. 70,000 made by the AO on account of amount spent by the assessee in the purchase of a car. A perusal of the assessment order shows that it was only during the post-search enquiries that it came to light that the assessee had purchased a second-hand Maruti car from Vijay Gupta during the later part of 1991 for Rs. 70,000 paid in cash. After examining the assessee and Vijay Gupta in the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO rejected the assessee's claim and brought the amount to tax for the asst. yr. 1992-93. The appeal to the CIT(A) being unsuccessful, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
23. This is again a matter for consideration in a regular assessment proceeding and not to be dealt with in a block assessment, as nothing has been found during the search to show that the assessee has paid the amount of Rs. 70,000 in cash and out of his undisclosed income. Even the AO refers only to "post-search enquiries" as the basis for the addition. In the absence of any evidence found during the search, the post-search enquiries cannot be acted upon by the AO even as material or information relatable to any evidence found during the search, within the meaning of Section 158BB(1). The IT authorities were not, therefore, justified in taxing the amount in the block assessment. We delete the same and allow the ground.
24. The next ground, ground No. 7, is directed against the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 received by the assessee on account of sponsorship money received from Sanspareils Green Land Ltd (SGL). The amount was paid to the assessee on 1st March, 2000, as endorsement money, which he declared in his return for the asst. yr. 2000-01 which was filed after the date of search, i.e., on 17th Oct., 2000. The return was due on 30th June, 2000. The AO also noted that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 received by the assessee from SGL on 16th Aug"., 1995, had not been disclosed in the regular return but was offered for taxation in the block period, for the asst. yr. 1996-97. The assessee was, therefore, called upon to explain why the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 received during the financial year 1999-2000 shall not be taxed in the block period. The assessee stated that the return for the asst. yr. 2000-01 could not be filed within the time prescribed as he was away in UK from April, 2000, till September, 2000, and that he had no intention of not filing the return. The AO rejected the explanation and invoked Section 158BB(1)(ca) and brought the amount to tax in the block assessment. The CIT(A) having upheld the action of the AO, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
25. The argument advanced on behalf of the assessee was that the receipt was admitted by the assessee, that tax was deducted at source from the same, that since the assessee was not in India during April to September, 2000, he could not file the return, that he filed it immediately on his return to India from UK and that the assessee cannot be said to have concealed the income. On the other hand, the learned CIT (Departmental Representative), besides strongly relying on the orders of the IT authorities, relied also on the judgment of the Madras High Court in B. Noorsingh v. Union of India (2000) 160 CTR (Mad) 124 : (1999) 105 Taxman 101 (Mad) and the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Overseas Chinese Cuisine (India) (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (1996) 55 TTJ (Mumbai)(TM) 304 : (1996) 56 ITD 67 (Mumbai)(TM).
26. On a careful consideration of the matter, we see no reason to interfere. The fact remains that the assessee received the amount of Rs. 1 lakh in March, 2000, and the same has to be included in the return for the asst. yr. 2000-01. This return ought to have been filed on or before 30th June, 2000. The return was not filed within the due date. It may be that the assessee was away from India, but even so, a return can be filed in India within the due date either by obtaining the assessee's signature by sending the return to him or by getting the return signed by a person duly authorized by him in this behalf under Section 140(a)(ii) of the Act. It is not an impossibility. At any rate, Section 158BB(1)(ca) is not concerned with the reasons for not filing the return within the due date. It has been rightly invoked, in our opinion. We, therefore, uphold the addition. However, the same amount cannot be taxed twice, once in the block assessment and again in the regular assessment. Apparently, the assessee has included the amount in the regular return filed on 17th Oct., 2000. The IT authorities will have to devise a method by which the double taxation of the same amount is avoided. The addition made in the block assessment is upheld and the ground is rejected.
27. The ground No. 8 is directed against the addition of Rs. 23,000 on account of alleged receivable amounts. The addition has been made on the basis of a loose sheet found during the search in which the assessee, in his own handwriting, has noted down certain amounts against the names of certain persons as "lena hai". These amounts totalled to Rs. 23,000. In the course of the post-search enquiries, the assessee admitted that these were amounts receivable by him from those persons for playing cricket matches. Later, he contradicted the statement and said that he has to pay the amounts to those persons. The AO rejected the later statement and brought the amount to tax as undisclosed income, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). After going through the facts and the rival arguments, and taking into account that the addition has been made on the basis of evidence found during the search and the fact that the loose sheet is in the handwriting of the assessee, and rejecting his afterthought that the amounts are payable by him, we hold that the addition has been rightly made. The same is confirmed and the ground is dismissed.