We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue. 2. This Tax Appeal has been filed on the following two proposed questions of law :-
“[A] Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of unaccounted payment as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s. 69C ?
[B] Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure incurred on purchase of land at Jodhpur for Marwar Hotels Projects ?”
3. So far as the first question is concerned, addition of Rs.10 Lacs was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement recorded during the search given by Mr. Umed Singh P. Champavat who stated that he has given Rs.10 Lacs to one Mr. P.G. Parikh as brokerage for arranging NRI fund in the month of February, 1995. On that basis, the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.10 Lacs for the block period.
In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the addition was made solely on the basis of statement given by Mr. Umed Singh P. Champavat. No other document was seized during the search and the statement of Mr. Umed Singh P. Champavat was explained by the assessee even before the Assessing Officer on the basis of the provisions made addition in the Books of accounts. He has further stated before the Assessing Officer that he never received Rs.10 Lacs from Mr. Umed Singh P. Champavat. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the amount was not paid to Mr. P.G. Parikh and it was properly explained by the assessee in his books of accounts, therefore, the addition of Rs.10 Lacs made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
4. So far as the second question about addition of Rs.20 Lacs for the block period is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that for the block assessment, additions could be made on the basis of the material or evidence found during the course of search or other documents or material or information available with the Assessing Officer relatable to such evidence. In this case, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.20 Lacs on the basis of proposed/draft agreement which was never acted upon. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that only on the basis of proposed/draft agreement, addition of Rs.20 Lacs could not be made.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal and we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error. Further, we do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law, arising in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.] Sd/-
[N. V. ANJARIA, J.] Savariya