Isidore Fernandes,Age : Major v. This Appeal Is Preferred Under Section 260-A Of Income Taxact, 1961 (I.t.act’ For Short) Challenging Order Dated 30[Th] June2011 Passed By Income Tax Appellate

1 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, AT GOAAPPELLATE SIDE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.56 OF 2012 1. Isidore Fernandes,Age : Major, PAN No. ,R/o.St.Inez, Panaji-Goa. 2. Mrs.Pauline Fernandes,Age : Major, PAN No. ,R/o.St.Inez, Panaji-Goa.Appellants versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle, Panaji, Goa.Respondent Mr.D.Pangam with Mr.Parikshit Sawant, Advocates for Appellants.Ms.Susan Linhares, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK ANDB.P.DESHPANDE, JJ.Date of reserving the Judgment :25[th] August 2023Date of pronouncing the Judgment :12[th] February 2024 JUDGMENT – (Per : Prakash D. Naik, J.) :- 1.This appeal is preferred under Section 260-A of Income TaxAct, 1961 (`I.T.Act’ for short) challenging Order dated 30[th] June2011 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, Goa (`ITAT’)in Income Tax Appeal Nos.176 to 178 and 182 to 183/PNJ/2008. 2.Appellant filed return of Income Tax on 17[th] October 2001declaring total income of Rs.1,67,083/- and agricultural income of 2 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc Rs.57,239/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of I.T.Act.Subsequently search u/s.132 was conducted on 31[st] August 2004.Notice u/s.153A of I.T.Act was issued on 30th November 2004 andserved on the Appellant-Assessee on 1st December 2004 requiringthe assessee to furnish the return within 45 days from the receiptthereof. In response, the assessee filed his return declaring NILincome. Subsequently the assessee revised his income on 4[th] March2005 declaring total income of Rs.1,67,083 and agricultural incomeof Rs.57,239/-. 3.Notice u/s.143(2) was issued to the assessee on 21[st]September 2005 and it was served on the assessee on 26[th] September2005. Subsequent notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) along withquestionnaire was issued on 14[th] June 2006 and served on theassessee on 28[th] June 2006. The advocate and authorizedrepresentative of the assessee filed some information. Thequestionnaires were issued vide letters dated 20[th] July 2006 and 16[th]October 2006. The representative of assessee filed details called for. 4.The Assessing Officer assessed the total income asRs.19,25,286/- and agricultural income of Rs.57,239/-. Appellantwas held liable to pay interest of Rs.11,29,825/-. It was directed thatdemand notice be issued accordingly and show cause notice u/s.274r/w 27(1)(c) of I.T.Act was issued. 5.The Assessment Order dated 20[th] December 2006 waschallenged by preferring appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). Vide order dated 16[th] October 2008 the appeal was partlyallowed. 3 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc 6.Learned counsel for Appellants submitted as under : (a)The impugned orders are contrary to law; (b)In accordance with Section 69(C) of I.T.Act it is requiredto be established firstly that expenditure was incurred. Except bearentries, there is nothing on record to show that there wasexpenditure incurred; (c)The proof of spending is not there. Tax cannot be leviedon inference which is not supported by evidence; (d)The I.T.Department has not taken into account sale ofcapital goods made during the financial year 1999-2000 at Poiguinimagricultural land against which Appellant had cash in hand at farmhouse; (e)It was an error to make addition on account of peakcredit of Rs.3,84,000/- and Rs.55,186/- without taking intoconsideration availability of cash with the assessee out of sale ofcapital goods at the farm house; (f)It was an error to make addition of Rs.29,03,000/-u/s.69(c) against recording in diary maintained by accessee; (c)The proof of spending is not there. Tax cannot be leviedon inference which is not supported by evidence; (d)The I.T.Department has not taken into account sale ofcapital goods made during the financial year 1999-2000 at Poiguinimagricultural land against which Appellant had cash in hand at farmhouse; (e)It was an error to make addition on account of peakcredit of Rs.3,84,000/- and Rs.55,186/- without taking intoconsideration availability of cash with the assessee out of sale ofcapital goods at the farm house; (f)It was an error to make addition of Rs.29,03,000/-u/s.69(c) against recording in diary maintained by accessee; (g)It was brought to the notice of Assessing Officer thatentries appearing in the diary are relating to the real estatecommission business. The names appearing on the pages are ofdifferent persons who have done transactions on which assessee gotcommission and the amounts mentioned against their names are theconsiderations paid or received by those persons; 4 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc (h)The assessee was called upon to furnish names andaddressed of the persons to whom the Appellants were met alongwith source of making payments. The assessee had givenexplanation vide letter submitted on 5[th] July 2006 by stating that thediary is the record of transactions of commission earned with regardto real estate business. The wife of assessee was looking after thereal estate business and assessee is trying to trace the persons whoare recorded therein. It will be difficult to produce such persons.The books ending for the period on 31[st] March 2001 shall havereference of most of the names and those books are seized. Theassessee has not made any payment nor received any payment. Theassessee has received commission on the transactions andcommission is duly accounted for. The names mentioned in theseized material have reference in the books of account maintainedfor the purpose of agricultural income and commission for the yearending on 31[st] March 2001. In this book of account, the assessee hasshown commission received from January-2001 and February-2001.The account book was not available on the date of search and thesame was produced during post search inquiries and assessmentproceedings. The assessee has received similar commission in theearlier years and subsequent orders; (i)In reply to the questionnaire dated 16[th] October 2006,the assessee in his letter dated 1[st] November 2006 stated that all thenotings appearing in seized material No.A/IF/01 and A/IF/02 arereal estate transactions on which assessee got commission, which hasbeen accounted in the books of account. Some of the namesappearing in the list are relating to the commission received from M/s.Dempo; 5 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc (j)The assessee was called upon to explain about paymentof certain amount to tenants/mundakars and whether said paymentwas made directly to tenants/mundakars. In reply, it was stated thatamount has been directly paid to the tenants by cheques/pay orders; (k)The assessee in his letter dated 12[th] December 2006 hadsubmitted reply in respect to letter of M/s.Dempo and clarified thatnames of tenants are recorded by M/s.Dempo in the year 1996-97.The assessee had received commission from M/s.Dempo for therelevant year 2001-02. All these amounts were received towardscommission. The diary and lose papers have no evidentiary value.Such documents have no basis for assessment and inferences ofincome. 7.Learned counsel for Appellants has relied upon followingdecisions : (i)M/s.Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax, Bombay City II, Bombay – cdj-1980-SC-095; (ii)M/s.Krishna Textiles Vs The Commissioner of IncomeTax - (Income Tax Reference No.43 of 1999 decided by DB ofGujarat High Court; (iii)CBI Vs. V.C.Shukla and others – (1998)3-SCC-410. 7.Learned counsel for Appellants has relied upon followingdecisions : (i)M/s.Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax, Bombay City II, Bombay – cdj-1980-SC-095; (ii)M/s.Krishna Textiles Vs The Commissioner of IncomeTax - (Income Tax Reference No.43 of 1999 decided by DB ofGujarat High Court; (iii)CBI Vs. V.C.Shukla and others – (1998)3-SCC-410. 8.Learned advocate for Respondent submitted that there areconcurrent findings of appellate authorities which does not warrantinterference. During the course of search at the residence of assesseedocuments were seized which contains lose papers and notings in thediary. The total amount mentioned against name is Rs.30,85,000/- 6 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc which is written as “PAID” and Rs.7,15,000/- is shown as balance.The assessee could not give proper explanation. The assessee did notfurnish names and addresses of the persons named therein. Theassessee was asked to explain the exact nature of transaction andfurnish names and addresses of persons mentioned therein withpurpose of transactions. The assessee tried to explain that notingsare real estate transactions on which he received commission whichhas been accounted for in the books of account. Since it was statedthat transactions were relating to M/s.Dempo and TDS certificate hasbeen filed by the assessee issued by M/s.Devashri Real EstateDevelopers, Dempo House, Panji, vide letter dated 16[th] November2006 they were called upon to furnish nature of professional servicesrendered by assessee in respect of TDS. It was reported thatpayment of Rs.1,50,000/- was made to assessee towards liaisoningad assisting M/s.Devashri Real Estate Developers in negotiations withtenants and mundakars for re-settlement and development of Toncaproperty where a complex has been constructed by it. They werealso asked the names of tenants/mundakars who were staying in theproperty and the amount paid to said persons. The details werefurnished. The names and amounts given by M/s.Devashri RealEstate Developers were not in conformity with the amounts writtenby assessment in the seized material. All the amounts were paid byM/s.Devashri Real Estate Developers directly to thetenants/mundakars by cheques/pay orders and hence question ofwriting names of tenants in the assessee’s diary does not arise. Thus,it was established that M/s.Devashri Real Estate Developers has notgiven any amount to the assessee to disburse to the tenants/mundakars. The names given by M/s.Devashri Real EstateDevelopers and names written in the seized material does not match. 7 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc Therefore, assessee’s statement that names and amounts mentionedon pages 3, 7 and 9 of the seized material are relating to to realestate business for assisting M/s.Devashri Real Estate Developers forvacating tenants/munadakrs from the proposed construction site andthe amount mentioned against such names are the totalconsideration received by parties and the assessee has received onlycommission out of those transactions, is without any basis. It wasproved that transactions were not relating to real estate dealings onwhich assessee has received commission of Rs.1,50,000/- but theassessee has spent Rs.30,85,000/- during the previous financial year.Hence amount of Rs.30,85,000/- was added to the income written asunexplained expenditure u/s.69C of I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer,the First Appellate Authority and the ITAT have given findings on thematerial on record, which does not warrant interference. 9.The assessee filed income tax return declaring income ofRs.1,67,083/- and agricultural income of Rs.57,239/-. Search wasconducted u/s.132 of I.T.Act. Notice was issued u/s.153A of Act. Theassessee filed return declaring NIL income. Thereafter assesseerevised income on 4[th] March 2005 declaring total income ofRs.1,67,083/- and agricultural income of Rs.57,239/-. Noticeu/s.143(2) of I.T.Act was issued to the assessee. The authorizedrepresentative of assessee appeared before Assessing Officer. 10.Assessee is an ex-MLA. He is running a Bar and Restaurant &real estate business. During the assessment it was found thatassessee and his family members were having certain bank accountswhich were not disclosed. The assessee contended that accountsrelates to his daughter and sons. The assessee was called upon tofurnish details of employment of his children. The assessee produced 8 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc certain documents. The Assessing Officer analyzed said documentsand was of the opinion that children of the assessee were students.The Assessing Officer found that assessee has not disclosed bankaccounts and the interest earned on amounts deposited in suchaccounts. Sum of Rs.2,104/- was added on the income returned. Itwas noticed that during the previous year assessee had creditedcertain amount to SB account maintained for agricultural income.He was asked to explain the source of credited entries of saidamount. The assessee stated that he had sold his capital assets,however, did not produce any evidence, e.g. license obtained forcutting trees etc. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee hasgross receipts of Rs.1,95,248/- from agricultural operations and afterdebiting the expenditures as declared net agricultural income ofRs.1,46,836/-. Considering the fact that account was maintained foragricultural income and assessee is having considerable amount ofagricultural income, the peak credits in the said account ofRs.3,84,000/- was treated as assessee’s income earned from otherthan agricultural activities utilized for crediting the same in the saidaccount. 11.During the search a document called as `Goa Diary’ was seizedand it was numbered as A/IF/02. Noting was found in it in thehandwriting of wife of assessee stating that amount of Rs.2,20,000/-was given to Newton. The assessee gave explanation to the entriesand stated that diary belongs to the assessee and his wife and entriesin the diary were made by him and his wife. He did not recollect thesaid person to whom the amount is given. However, amount given tothe person is returned back on different dates from March-2001 toAugust-2002. The assessee could not explain the entries properly.Subsequently vide letter dated 1[st] November 2006 it was stated that 9 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was advanced at the agricultural farm toMr.Newton for putting fencing to agricultural farm. Since he did notcomplete the job, money was recovered back. The Assessing Officerfound that recovery of excess amount has not been shown as receiptsin the amount. 9 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was advanced at the agricultural farm toMr.Newton for putting fencing to agricultural farm. Since he did notcomplete the job, money was recovered back. The Assessing Officerfound that recovery of excess amount has not been shown as receiptsin the amount. 12.During the course of search at the residence of assesseematerial marked as A/IF/01 and A/IF/02 were seized which containlose papers and notings in the diary. In the material marked A/IF/02and A/IF/01 total of the amount written as Rs.30,85,000/- waswritten as paid and Rs.7,15,000/- was shown as balance. During thecourse of search assessee was questioned about contents ofdocuments. It was admitted by the wife of assessee that documentwas found at her residence and it belongs to her husband. She alsostated that she is not in a position to explain anything as the diarybelongs to her husband. The assessee was asked to explain the same.It was explained that entries are relating to real estate commissionbusiness. The names appearing are of different persons who havedone transactions on which assessee got commission and the amountmentioned against their names are of considerations paid or receivedby those persons on which assessee got some commission. Theassessee was asked to furnish names and addressed of the persons towhom payments were made along with source for which paymentswere made. The assessee stated that his wife is looking after the realestate business and he is trace out the persons. He has not made anydemand nor received any payment. The names of persons named inthe seized material have reference to the books of accountmaintained for the purpose of agricultural income and commissionfor the year ending on 31[st] March 2001. The assessee showedcommission received from January-2001 and February-2001. The 10 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc account book was not available on the date of search. It wasproduced during post search inquiry and assessment proceedings.Since assessee did not furnish names and addresses of the personsreflected in the aforesaid documents, he was again asked to explainnature of transactions. The assessee by his letter dated 1[st] November2006 stated that notings are real estate transactions on which he gotcommission which has been accounted in the books of accounts.Some of the names appearing in the lose papers are of commissionreceived from M/s.Dempo. Since it was stated that this transaction isrelating to commission received from M/s.Dempo and since assesseehad admitted receipt of gross receipt of Rs.1,50,000/- as commissionamount and also TDS certificate has been filed by the assessee issuedby M/s.Devashri Real Estate Developers, Dempo House, Panji, videletter dated 16[th] November 2006, they were asked to furnish natureof professional services rendered by assessee in respect of TDS. Theywere also asked names of tenants/mundakars who were staying insaid property and the amount paid to said persons. M/s.DevashriReal Estate Developers furnished information about tenants andamount paid. It was also reported that payment of Rs.1,50,000/-was made to assessee towards liaisoning and assisting M/s.DevashriReal Estate Developers in negotiating with tenants and mudakars forresettlement and development of property where they haveconstructed a complex. It was also stated by them that amount hasbeen directly paid to the tenants/mundakars by cheques/pay orders.The names and amount given by M/s.Devashri Real EstateDevelopers was not in conformity with the names and amountswritten by assessee in the seized material and also amounts werepaid directly to the tenants by cheques and/or pay orders, thequestion of writing names of tenants in the assessee’s diary does not 11 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc 11 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc arise. The assessee submitted his reply vide letter dated 12[th]December 2006 stating that those were the names of tenantsrecorded by M/s.Dempo in the year 1996-97. He has receivedcommission from M/s.Dempo for the relevant period of assessment2001-02. The Assessing Officer opined that assessee’s contentionthat names mentioned in M/s.Devashri Real Estate Developers letterare relating to the year 1996-97. The opinion from M/s.DevashriReal Estate Developers was called for relating to TDS made by themduring the year 2000-01 relating to assessee for assisting them forvacating tenants. It was also stated that he has employed persons toremove the tenants and names mentioned in the diary is of thepersons who assisted him for evicting the tenants. The statementwas contradictory to the statement made during the course of searchand during assessment proceedings wherein it was stated that namesmentioned in the diary is of tenants of M/s.Dempo and he hasassisted M/s.Dempo in evicting tenants and the amount mentionedtherein are the compensation paid by them. Since M/s.Dempo haspaid compensation directly to the tenants by cheque and/or payorders, the need of writing their names in diary is unusual. Theassessee did not produce any person whose name was written in thediary. If the names named in the diary is of the person who hasassisted the assessee for evicting the tenants, he could have producedsuch persons to verify the veracity of his statement. The assessee istrying to evade the truth. The Assessing Officer therefore satisfiedthat it is established truth that M/s.Devashri Real Estate Developershas not given any amount to assessee to disburse amount to tenants/mundakars. Thus, the statement of assessee to the effect that namesand amount mentioned on material A/IF/01 and A/IF/02 is relatingto real estate business for assisting M/s.Dempo for vacating tenants 12 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc from proposed construction site and amount mentioned against suchnames are total consideration received by concerned parties and theassessee has received only commission out of these transactions hasno substance. Thus, transactions are not relating to real estatedealings to which assessee has received commission of Rs.1,50,000/-but the assessee has spent Rs.30,85,000/- during the relevantassessment year under consideration which is not explained in any ofthe assessment year as the said amount is to be added in the incomewritten as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of I.T.Act. The totalincome of the assessee was computed, as stated hereinabove, and itwas held vide Assessment Order dated 20[th] December 2006 thatpayable income tax is Rs.11,29,825/-. 13.From the assessment order it is apparent that adverseinference about entries made in the diary was not made merely onthe basis of such entries but also on the explanation given byassessee and falsity found in the explanation. 14.The assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner of IncomeTax challenging the Assessment Order dated 20[th] December 2006.The appeal was filed for the A.Y.1999-2000 to 2005-06. TheCommissioner of I.T (Appeals) (`CIT(A)’) noted that all the majorissues in this case have been dealt with by Assessing Officer in theassessment order passed for the A.Y.2001-02 and the appellate orderwill first check up and adjudicate the issues relevant for A.Y.2001-02and thereupon individual issues in other assessment years will betaken up. The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer in theassessment order has disallowed excess exemption claimed ofRs.17,800’/-. The said ground was not pressed by Appellant andhence same was dismissed. It was observed that addition of 13 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc 13 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc Rs.3,84,000/- made by Assessing Officer after working of peak creditis upheld. The CIT (A) also confirmed the addition of Rs.55,186/- byAssessing Officer after marking out peak credit in the undisclosedbank account. The ground regarding addition of Rs.10,000/- madeby Assessing Officer for amount receivable from Mr.Newton out ofagricultural amount was not pressed. Other ground urged beforeCIT (A) was against addition of Rs.29,03,000/- made by AssessingOfficer u/s.69(3) for recordings made in diary seized during search.The CIT(A) analyzed the observations of Assessing Officer in greatdetails and observed that reasons stipulated in the assessment orderled the Assessing Officer to conclude that the transactions noted inthe diary were different from the real estate business on which theassessee had received commission and the amount was spent onsome activities which have not been explained and as such additionfor unexplained expenditure u/s.69C was made by the AssessingOfficer. The CIT(A) observed that assessee has not brought onrecord any evidence to establish that entries pertain to any otherassessment year and as such Assessing Officer cannot be faulted forconsidering the transactions mentioned therein for the periodrelevant for he period 2001-02. The submission that transactionmentioned in the seized diary is spread from 1996 to 2002 wasrejected. It was further observed that document has been seizedfrom the residence of assessee. It has been admitted to be belongingto the assessee and written by assessee’s wife as per directions ofassessee. During the proceedings amounts mentioned against thenames of particular persons was admitted to be consideration paid orreceived by those persons. The assessee was not able to furnishcomplete names and addresses of the persons to whom thesepayments were made. The CIT(A) also considered the fact that 14 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc assessee has been taking different stands in regard to thetransactions mentioned in the seized diary. The peak of amount inwhich commission was shown as received from January-2001 toFebruary-2001 was produced during inquiry. It was not available onthe date of search at the premises and entries are made after searchto co-relate the amounts mentioned in the seized diary. The factremains that assessee’s stand of having received commission incomefor transaction with Dempo for assisting M/s.Devashri Real EstateDevelopers for eviction of tenants, is repudiated by the fact thatnames and amounts given by M/s.Devashri Real Estate Developersare not dealing with the names and amounts found written in theseized material. It is the claim of M/s.Devashri Real EstateDevelopers that amounts were directly paid by them to the tenantsby cheques or pay orders. Besides there being variations in the namesand amounts, the assessee had no occasion to refer such paymentsmade by M/s.Devashri Real Estate Developers and thereforeAssessing Officer was right in treating the transaction recorded in theseized papers as distinct from the payments made by M/s.DevashriReal Estate Developers. The CIT(A) also upheld the AssessingOfficer’s action in charging interest u/s.234B of I.T.Act. Vide orderdated 16[th] October 2008 appeal for the year 1999-2000 to 2005-06was partly allowed. 15.The appeals were preferred before ITAT, Panaji against orderdated 16[th] October 2008 passed by CIT(A). The ITAT has observedthat interest is to be increased by the amount payable under(i) ofSection 234B of I.T.Act. Such an increase can be made only ifinterest u/s.234B has been charged in the original assessment. TheITAT remitted the matter back to Assessing Officer for verification offacts and adjudication. 15 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc 15.The appeals were preferred before ITAT, Panaji against orderdated 16[th] October 2008 passed by CIT(A). The ITAT has observedthat interest is to be increased by the amount payable under(i) ofSection 234B of I.T.Act. Such an increase can be made only ifinterest u/s.234B has been charged in the original assessment. TheITAT remitted the matter back to Assessing Officer for verification offacts and adjudication. 15 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc 16.The ITAT observed that CIT(A) has already considered theissue in detail about peak credit in the bank account and rejectedsaid ground. The ITAT also dealt with the ground relating to entriesmade in the diary found at the residence of assessee. The Tribunalconsidered the fact that Assessing Officer has verified fromM/s.Devashri Real Estate Developers who reported that payment ofRs.1,50,000/- was made towards liaisoning and assisting them innegotiations with the tenants and mundakars for re-settlement anddevelopment of property where complex was constructed by them.They also furnished names of tenants/mundakars staying in theproperty and confirmed that amounts have been directly paid to thetenants/mundakars by cheques/pay orders and it was not the casethat amount was first paid to the assessee and then disbursed by thelatter to the concerned persons. Being confronted with the replyreceived from M/s.Devashri Real Estate Developers on the point ofdiscord and disparity in names and amounts appearing in two sets ofdocuments, the seized material and details furnished by thedevelopers, the assessee submitted that the names furnished by thedeveloper was for the year 1996-97. The explanation was notaccepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer referred tothe contradictory stand taken by assessee at different stages. TheAssessing Officer also mentioned that compensation to the tenantswas directly paid by M/s.Dempo and that assessee was not able toproduce any persons whose names were mentioned in the diary andthose produced by M/s.Dempo were deferred. The CIT(A)considered the aspects at length and recorded finding thatexplanation furnished by assessee with regard to entries in the diaryis rightly not found valid by the Assessing Officer. The ITAT did notfind any fault with the order of Assessing Officer and it was upheld. 16 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc The ITAT also rejected other contentions of Appellants and by orderdated 30[th] June 2011, the appeals were disposed off being partlyallowed. 17.The Assessing Officer has elaborately discussed all the issuedby analyzing the documents and factual matrix. The CIT(A) alsodealt with issues urged by assessee by preferring appeal and the ITAThas also concurred with the views expressed by Assessing Officerexcept on minor issues. We do not find any reason to interfere in theconcurrent findings of the authorities as stated above. 18.The decisions relief upon by learned advocate for Appellantswere delivered in the facts and circumstances of those cases andcannot be made applicable to the present case. 16 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc The ITAT also rejected other contentions of Appellants and by orderdated 30[th] June 2011, the appeals were disposed off being partlyallowed. 17.The Assessing Officer has elaborately discussed all the issuedby analyzing the documents and factual matrix. The CIT(A) alsodealt with issues urged by assessee by preferring appeal and the ITAThas also concurred with the views expressed by Assessing Officerexcept on minor issues. We do not find any reason to interfere in theconcurrent findings of the authorities as stated above. 18.The decisions relief upon by learned advocate for Appellantswere delivered in the facts and circumstances of those cases andcannot be made applicable to the present case. 19.It is pertinent to note that the documents found and seizedfrom the assessee’s premises were written by Appellant no.2Mrs.Pauline Fernandes, wife of Appellant no.1 Mr.Isidore Fernandes.The entries in this document is relating to the business of assessee ofliaisoning for which commission has been received from time to time.The assessee has made payment, as explained, in getting clear theproperties or vacating the same from unauthorized occupants. Theassessee does not deny that these entries did not relate to theactivities carried out by him. He also admits that only part of theentries are correct. The authorities below have found thatexplanation given by the assessee is not tenable and it does notsupport his case. Nexus of payment by M/s.Dempo has not beenestablished with the payment shown as made in the lose sheetsfound in the house of assessee. The assessee was unable to explainthe source of availability of funds. Payments are not disclosed by 17 of 17 ITA.56.2012..doc assessee in the regular returns of income tax filed prior to the date ofsearch. The entries in the lose sheets has not been explained. Theauthorities below have rightly rejected the claim of the assesseebeing devoid of any merit. No interference is called for in theimpugned orders Appeal must fail and is required to be dismissed. ORDER (i)Income Tax Appeal No.56 of 2012 is dismissed. (B.P.DESHPANDE, J.) (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST