COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RAJEEV SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the Revenue under Section 260a of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), arising from order dt. 30th June, 2003 of the Tribunal, Indore Bench, in ITA No. 613/ind/1997 (Asstt. CIT v. Rajeev Shukla) and CO. No. 104/ind/1997 (Rajeev Shukla v. Asstt. CIT) relating to asst. yr. 1992-93. The appeal has been admitted on the ground that the following three questions raised by the Revenue arise for consideration:

(2.) THE AO in his order of assessment dt. 10th March, 1995 added a sum of Rs. 63,351 as unexplained peak difference of investment over income. The assessee had declared an income of Rs. 1,18,101 which included other business income of Rs. 60,000, and on that basis paid self-assessment tax on 24th Sept. , 1992. Thereafter there was a search from 28th Oct. , 1992 onwards in the premises of Shukla family including the assessee. While framing the assessment, the AO examined the cash rotation statement submitted by the assessee to explain the various investments and held that it was not acceptable for the following reasons:

(3.) ON appeal by the assessee, the CIT (A) found that insofar as the other business income of Rs. 60,000 was concerned, this had been voluntarily disclosed and included in the return filed in regard to which the self-assessment tax was paid by the assessee on 24th Sept. , 1992, much before the date of search and, therefore, it was unreasonable to infer that the assessee had declared the income of Rs. 60,000 with a view to take advantage of excess income found in search. The appellate authority also found that the lottery prize winnings of less than Rs. 5,000 were settled by spot payments in cash on surrendering of tickets and the payments were not by cheques. Thus, the appellate authority found that the addition of sum of Rs. 63,351 as unexplained investments was not justified and deleted the addition. That was affirmed by the Tribunal in the appeal by the Revenue.