Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iv) Income Tax Officer v. W.D. Estate (P) Ltd. (1993) 46 TTJ (Bom) 143 : (1993) 45 ITD 473 (Bom), and

(v) M. V Mathews v. Income Tax Officer (1996) 46 TTJ (Coch) 353.

13.5 The learned counsel invited particular reference to the decision in the case of Income Tax Officer v. Pitamber Industries (P) Ltd. (1992) 42 ITD 373 (Del) wherein it was held that no addition could be made on the basis of a table diary belonging to a disgruntled employee. A reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court fn the case of L.K Advani in Cr. R.P. No. 265/1996 and as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VC. Shukla. In the Bombay High Court judgment reported in JT 1998 (Dal) SC 172 the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act were interpreted and it was held that on the basis of entries in the diary of a third person no case can be made out. The learned counsel contested that in light of the above judgments cited, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee-firm on the basis of the entries in the diary of a third person. It was also contested that there is no justification for presuming that the figure of "192" represented a sum of Rs. 1,92,000. However, in view of the confession made before the assessing officer that a sum of Rs 19,200 be added to the undisclosed income the learned counsel has not contested the addition to that extent, without prejudice to the main contention that no such payments were even made and there is no evidence brought on record by the assessing officer to prove that any such payments were made. According to the learned counsel owner of the diary was not examined and handwriting of the author of the diary was also not proved. No corroborative evidence was brought on record to support the entries in the diary.