- (1.) IN this appeal, following questions are raised : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not rectifying its earlier order, and sustaining addition to the tune of Rs. 50,000 instead, of Rs. 48,500 despite the fact that 2/3rd investment in pawning business at Rs. 72,750 was accepted by the Tribunal ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to rectify its earlier order and rejecting the claim in regard to deductions under Chapter VI -A on the ground that it was not pressed and no details were filed and there is no mistake apparent on the face of record, when sufficient material was available on the record ?
(2.) A search under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961, took place on 31st Aug., 1995 at the assessee's premises. Cash book and other records relating to business of appellant were found and seized. Inter alia, after perusal of the record, the income was assessed in the block year. The controversy before us is related to the asst. yr. 1996 -97. The first issue relates to the addition of Rs. 50,000 in the pawning business.
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that the correct figure is Rs. 48,500. The AO on the basis of the record considered the amount found for the period from 26th Oct., 1993 to 13th Dec., 1994. At the time of search, assessee himself admitted that Rs. 75,750 had already been advanced. On the basis of this figure and the material found total amount in the block year comes to Rs. 1,15,250 and on the basis of investment, which had not been explained before the AO, the AO added Rs. 50,000 on this account.;