R.M. Lodha, J. - (1.) WE heard counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the Tribunal dated 2 -3 -2005.
(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that the assessing officer failed to follow the direction given by the Tribunal in its order dated 27 -12 -2002 and, therefore, the order after remand is vitiated and the Appellate Authority as well as Tribunal seriously erred in upholding the said order. It cannot be said that after remand the assessing officer has not kept in mind the direction issued in the order dated 27 -12 -2002. As a matter of fact, the assessing officer has elaborately considered the explanation furnished by the assessee. In this regard, the assessing officer held as under: I have considered the above submission made by the assessee and also verified the facts mentioned by him with relevant papers filed by him and that of the assessment records. The contention of the assessee is not correct. The assessee has contended that cash of Rs. 97,000 withdrawn from the account of M/s. Manish Exports. Perusal of statement of bank account of M/s. Manish Exports filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings reveals that amount of Rs. 97,000 in cash has been withdrawn from bank account No. 377 with the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. of M/s. Manish Exports as under: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date of withdrawal Amount withdrawn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22 -4 -1992 Rs. 79,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 23 -4 -1992 Rs. 1,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25 -4 -1992 Rs. 10,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 28 -4 -1992 Rs. 17,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Rs. 97,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The assessee has claimed that out of the above cash withdrawal of Rs. 90,000 from the account of M/s. Manish Exports, Rs. 10,000 was transferred from the said account of M/s. Vinod Associates from 22 -4 -1992 to 1 -5 -1992 out of these amounts Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 17,000 paid to Karigars and balance Rs. 12,700 was utilized (sic -for) purchase of shares as appearing in the seized paper. This contention of the assessee is absolutely wrong as the payment reflected on seized paper on the right hand side is reproduced below: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cash 75,000 21 -4 -1992 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Share SBI 12,700 20 -4 -1992 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17,000 20 -4 -1992 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Rs. 1,04,700 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thus, it can be seen from the above entries and date of withdrawal and payment to Karigars as claimed by the assessee does not corroborate. Because date of withdrawal of cash of Rs. 97,000 that is 22 -4 -1992,23 -4 -1992,24 -4 -1992 and 28 -4 -1992 falls after the date of payments Rs. 1,04,700 that is 21 -4 -1992, 20 -4 -1992 and 20 -4 -1992. When withdrawal of Rs. 97,000 is after the date of payment then how payments could be made from the withdrawal on the later date. Moreover no vouchers etc. relating to payments of Karigars have been produced before me. Therefore, the story of linking of the entries by the assessee failed. I have no hesitation to treat the amount of Rs. 1,04,700 as loan advanced to M/s. S.K. International by the assessee and the amount of Rs. 2,795 + Rs. 1,076 represents interest received from the payee. Thus, total amount of Rs. 1,08,571 (1,04,700 + 2,795 + 1,076) is added back to the income of the assessee.
(3.) THE aforesaid consideration of the matter by the assessing officer has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal.;