Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.5. While concluding his submissions on ground No. 22 learned counsel was fair enough to mention that some entries regarding purchase of paddy, etc. might be of the nature as alleged by assessing officer. He conceded that unaccounted money was given by the assessee and also received, for example, Rs. 1 lakh, Certain purchases might have been entered and certain entries might have remained unexplained. In case the assessee did purchase paddy, the same had to be processed/sold. He, therefore, urged that even if purchase of paddy has been made outside the books, the same have been sold. Learned counsel referred to cash flow account given from 1992 onwards. He referred to pp. 415-416, 426, 440, 450, 459-460, 465, 467 of paper-book and submitted that in the said cash flow account, credit entries have been made for inconung money and debit entries made for outgoings. He submitted that the highest peak in the said account works out to Rs. 20,83,633, say Rs. 21 lakhs as before 31-3-1993. He submitted that even addition of Rs. 1,60,600 (ground No. 9) is included in the said amount. He, therefore, urged that the amount of Rs. 21 lakhs could be undisclosed income and that the assessee has already surrendered Rs. 18.50 lakhs in the return as undisclosed income. He submitted that the assessee had surrendered Rs. 13 lakhs before 31-3-1993. He, therefore, urged that at the most the addition of Rs. 8 lakhs could be made. He urged that after March, 1993, the said money had been in circulation. Learned counsel also made an alternative submission that the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs belonging to Delhi party may be telescoped in the peak of Rs. 21 lakhs, out of which Rs. 18,50 lakhs have already been surrendered. He further submitted that the amount of Rs. 21 lakhs is not in the form of assets and even other additions mentioned in various grounds not specifically argued are required to be telescoped in the said addition.

5.5.1. Learned departmental Representative submitted that peak of Rs. 21 lakhs mentioned in cash flow account could not be the basis for allowing relief as urged by learned counsel.

5.5.2. Learned counsel, in his reply, submitted that cash flow account has not been rebutted by learned departmental Representative. He therefore, submitted that at the most addition of Rs. 8 lakhs could be sustained in the hands of the assessee. He urged that cash of Rs. 10 lakhs and additions on account of purchase of paddy need to be telescoped within the peak amount of Rs, 21 lakhs. With reference to telescoping of additions in the peak, learned counsel relied on the following decisions :

7.1. Learned counsel referred to pp. 273-278 of paper-book and submitted that all entries are in the books of account. He referred in particular to pp. 273, 275 and 277. He submitted that the books are with the department. He also submitted that this addition needs to be telescoped against the peak of Rs. 21 lakhs.

7.2. Learned departmental Representative relied on the assessment order.

7.3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and we feel that it win be just and fair to telescope this addition against peak of Rs. 21 lakhs, as discussed in para 9 of this order.

8.2. Learned departmental Representative relied on assessment order.

8.3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have perused assessment order. We feel that it will be just and fair to telescope this addition against peak of Rs. 21 lakhs, as discussed in para. 9 of this order.

9. As mentioned in para 5.5,3, now we proceed to deal with the question of telescoping of various additions on account of purchase of paddy, etc. It is observed that addition of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of cash seized has already been deleted vide para 6.4 of this order. Similarly, various additions mentioned in ground No. 22, which have been specifically argued before us have been deleted vide paras 5.1.2 (Rs. 4.35 lakhs), para 5.2.3. (Rs. 5.97 lakhs) and para 5.3.3. (Rs. 3.81 lakhs). The addition of Rs. 70,000 has been sustained by us vide para 5.4.4. We are, therefore, left with balance of the additions mentioned in grounds Nos. 5, 9 and 22 and other additions not specifically argued before us. It is observed that the assessee had referred to cash flow account before the assessing officer (para 57 of order). However, assessing officer observed that the assessee had not given basis of peak of Rs. 20 lakhs and odd and did not consider the cash flow account. We feel that assessing officer has also not given any basis for not considering the cash-flow account. He has not pointed out any infirmities in the said cash-flow account to come to the conclusion that he did. The observations of assessing officer that the assessee wants to take advantage of cash-flow account is no ground to deny the benefit, if admissible to the - assessee. Learned departmental Representative has also not been able to contest the correctness of entries in the said cash-flow account. We, therefore, feel that the cash-flow account deserves to be taken into account. It has not been disputed before us that the assessee had surrendered amount of Rs. 13 lakhs before 31-3-1993 and that the peak amount in the cash-flow account is between Rs. 20-21 lakhs, which represents the outgoings and incomings of the assessee during the relevant period, We, therefore, find merit in the contentions of learned counsel that at the most an addition of Rs. 8 lakhs as on 31-3-1993, can be made and thereafter the money remained in circulation, which will cover other additions mentioned in grounds Nos. 5, 9, 22 and other grounds not specifically argued before us. It is also observed that the assessee declared undisclosed income of Rs. 18.50 lakhs in the return, which means that in addition to Rs. 21 lakhs, a further amount of Rs. 5.50 lakhs was available to the assessee after 31-3-1993 till date of search for purposes of his unaccounted business. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that an addition of Rs. 8 lakhs plus Rs. 60,000 on account of trading in rice bran and of Rs. 70,000 on account of cash payment not entered in the relevant documents placed before us, will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, sustain a total addition of Rs. 9.30 lakhs in this case.