ITO Vs. ANOJ KUMAR AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals are filed by the revenue as well as the assessee respectively in respect of the assessment year 1992 -93 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we heard the same together and disposing of the same by this common order.

(2.) THE common ground raised in both the appeals are in respect of addition made by the assessing officer on account of daily wages in respect of contract business. The assessing officer has made an addition of Rs, 75,000 on the ground that the signatures and thumb impression of the labourers differed and hence, he made an addition of Rs. 75,000 to the total income of the assessee.

(3.) MR . B.L. Purohit, the learned authorised representative for the assessee, submitted that all the details regarding the payment of salaries to the labourers were produced before the assessing officer. The assessing officer was of the view that there was some variation in the signature and thumb impression of the labourers which differed from one another. The learned authorised representative vehemently argued that the contract business is mainly labour -oriented and the signatures of the labourers are bound to vary except a similarity in some feature. The learned authorised representative further submitted that the assessing officer without examining the labourers by invoking his power under section 131 of the Act has simply come to the conclusion that if genuine persons had been working, there would not be any discrepancy either in signature or thumb impression. According to the learned authorised representative, the assessing officer is not the competent person to say that the signatures varied. Moreover, the admitted signature and thumb impression were not even compared by the assessing officer before arriving at a conclusion. The learned authorised representative further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) also committed a mistake in estimating the addition without any basic material available before him. When the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the argument of the assessee that the variation in signature should not be adversely treated without properly examining the person concerned, he ought not to have made an addition on the basis of estimate. The further submission of the authorised representative was that when the books of account maintained by the assessee was scrutinised and the assessing officer as well as the first appellate authority has not raised any defect in the correctness or completeness of the accounts maintained by the assessee. Hence, the assessing officer or the first appellate authority has no discretion to estimate the addition.