P.J. Goradia - (1.) THIS appeal arises from the order dated 29-9-1992 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-X, Bombay (Mrs. Sushma Trivedi).
(2.) The first ground is against non-acceptance by the CIT(A) of the paperbook claimed to have been presented at the time of appeal hearing. This ground was not pressed and, therefore, the same is rejected. The second ground is in connection with addition on account of brokerage of Rs. 1,12,852 and discount of Rs. 2,72,353. It was the common contention of both the parties that on this aspect the decision taken in assessee's own case for assessment year 1988-89 in I.T.A. No. 6240 (Bom.) of 1993 be applied to the facts of the case. For the reasons recorded in our order disposing of the aforesaid appeal, we set aside the appellate order on this ground and restore the issue to the file of the first appellate authority with a direction to reconsider the claim of the assessee after considering full facts of the case and after bringing on record appropriate material and finding after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee as also to the Assessing Officer.
(3.) THE next ground relates to an addition of Rs. 19,60,000 added as unexplained cash credits in the assessment as also against disallowance of interest of Rs. 8,94,364 on the basis that conditions laid down under section 36(1)(iii) could not be said to have been fulfilled so as to allow the claim of interest on such loans. In this regard it would be appropriate to read the relevant portion of the assessment order extracted below : "As regards the letter filed by the assessee as mentioned above, the assessee has made false statement in writing which stated that local brokers have appeared before me for verification of loans. In fact no one attended before me anytime either in past or in present. This fact has already been told to Shri A.G. Joshi, C.A. THE assessee failed to furnish any details as mentioned above. He was further requested to furnish details to complete the assessment. As per assessee's representatives' request, another date for filing the details was fixed on 23-1-1992 with the condition that further extension may not be granted for filing the details. 3. On this date, i.e., on 23-1-1992, assessee's representative H.N. Mehta & Associates, C.A. wrote a letter stating as under : 'This has reference to the hearing our Shri Joshi has with you on 13th of this month. At the said time some information was required to be filed today. In this connection our client has informed us that the said details are not being compiled so far as the Accountant of the company who was looking after the accounts left the service. We, therefore, on behalf of our client request you to kindly adjourn today's hearing for 10 days. We hope your goodself will accede to our above request.' Considering the request, the assessee was further given opportunity to file the details and explain the return. Vide this office letter dated 23-1-1992 by fixing date of hearing on 31-1-1992 along with notice under section 142(1) of I.T. Act. 4. THE assessee's representative Shri A.G. Joshi, C.A. along with Shri H.L. Kathuria stated to be accountant of Group companies attended on 31-1-1992, but neither furnished any details as required to complete the assessment nor any explanation in writing in response to said letter dated 23-1-1992 and notice under section 142(1) of I.T. Act, 1961.;