According to section 68 where any sum is found credited in the books of assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to Income-tax as the income of the assessee for that previous year.
6.2 In the present case there has been admittedly a default in terms of s. 271F of the Act; the assessee’s legal ground, i.e., in respect of validity of its return, being of no consequence, in view of me. Clear mandate of the provision (s. 271F), as well as the decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna (supra). Further, the assessee’s plea of there being no presumption in law
9. I have gone through the records carefully and I am unable to find any reason for making addition in the hands of the assessee. The addition is based upon the search proceedings and seizure that took place in the case of Narendra Kumar Paraswani not in the hands of the firm. Even the statement that were recorded have not implicated the assessee in any manner
4.3 Both the authorities below have taken a view that though section 24(b) does not draw any distinction between a property that is self-occupied and one that is not, the assessee having not disclosed any income (annual value) there-against, and which can only be in respect of one house property, which stands already specified by him (the residential property at Shalimar Enclave, Agra), the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 24(b) is not maintainable.
11. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and gone through the impugned orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has clearly held that an admission by the assessee is not conclusive evidence and it is always open to the assessee who made the submission to show that it is incorrect.
8. Having carefully examined the entire evidences available on the record in the light of the oral submissions of the parties, with reference to the provisions of law and the precedents relied before us and after giving anxious thought, in the light of the plain words used in section 263 of the Act and in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT
25. On the basis of above material, it is not possible to hold that assessee was carrying on mere repair of transformers and not any manufacturing activity. Assessee’s claim that it is manufacturing electromechanical parts and accessories like winding coils, insulation material etc. etc. from different material is clearly established on record. No dispute had been raised that above items manufactured by the assessee
