ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S REALTECH PROJECT PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel,Adv Revenue by: Mrs. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR Date of Hearing 02/08/2017 Date of pronouncement 16/10/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. (Assessee ) and ITA No. 987/Del/2009 (Revenue) Assessment Year 2006-07 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-II, New Delhi dated 31.12.2008 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 720/Del/2009 appeal:-

1. The order of the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is arbitrary, against law and facts on record.

Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, and 987/Del/2009 and 3520/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2008-09)

1.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,06,10,867/- out of Rs 4,73,69,027/- of addition made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the evidence explanation and details furnished during the course of appellate proceeding 1.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in giving relief in only four out of six cases where in the original booking was cancelled ignoring the facts that in all the cases cheque & cash were returned back as per the copy of the account as well as other documentary evidence placed on record. 1.4 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not considering the fact that Assessing Officer has made the additions of Rs 4,73,69,027/- by considering the cash received as per Annexure - 12, as 13,78,69,027/- as against the actual cash received Rs. 9,23,80,027/- mentioned on document seized and formed part of seized material. 1.5 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in ignoring the facts that the assessee during the course of search proceedings has voluntarily surrendered a sum of Rs. 9,05,00,000/-. Considering the paper seized during the search proceedings and has been accepted by the department 1.6 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in justifying the action of the action of the Assessing officer in initiating the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the income tax Act, 1961, and levying the interest u/s 234A, B, C of the income tax Act.”

Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, and 987/Del/2009 and 3520/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2008-09)

4(a In the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 1,14,00,000/- in case of Sh. Vijay Kumar Mishra by holding that hand written papers seized from the assessee has more evidentiary value than the computer printouts. (b) While deciding so Ld. CIT (A) has not considered the fact that the computer printout carries a higher evidentiary value as the same are prepared after taking into account all the transactions entered into by any person up to the time when such printouts are taken and necessarily include the transactions made on all hand written papers as well. (C) Lt. CIT (A) has decided this issue on presumption that all the hand written papers have been found and seized in this case when such presumption is negated by the fact that the transactions entered into computer printouts are not matching with the transactions entered into hand written papers which proves that all the hand written papers were not seized at the time of search thought their existence on the date of printouts cannot be denied".

Assessing Officer considered the explanation and rejected it as no evidence regarding return of the cash was produced, therefore, the ld Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 47369027/- to the returned income of assessee and passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2007 for Rs. 133096157/- against the returned income of Rs. 85727130/-.

stated above.

7. The ld Departmental Representative contesting the first ground of appeal submitted that the ld CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings without following the procedures under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. It was further contested that ld CIT(A) has reduced the aggregate of cash by Rs. 84.61 lakhs merely on account of typographical mistake which was not so. It was further submitted that the relief granted of Rs. 19782160/- on account of cancellation of booking was without any basis. It was further stated that relief of Rs. 1.14 crores with respect to Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra by holding that hand written papers seized from the assessee has more evidentiary value then the computer print outs. It was further contested that the addition deleted by the ld CIT(A) is only on the basis of hypothetical statements. Therefore, it was contested that the addition deleted of Rs. 36758160/- is erroneous.

8. The ld Authorised Representative vehemently submitted that no additional evidence has been submitted during the course of appellate proceedings and therefore, same deserves to be rejected. He referred to page No. 88 of the paper book which is the show cause notice dated 14.12.2007 issued by the Assessing Officer and he further referred to page No. 91 being replied thereto on 18.12.2007 by the assessee. He further referred to page No. 95 of his paper book to show that a sum of Rs. 137869027/- was initially recorded but ultimate sum received was Rs. 73863956/-. He further submitted that certain deals were also cancelled and thereafter the net cash received was only Rs. 8.61 crores which is less than Rs. 9.05 crores surrendered by the assessee. He further referred to page No. 179 of the paper book which is the details of seized paper where the details of cancellation of the deal for Rs. 47682160/- and clerical error of Rs. 84.61 lakhs is also detected. In view of this he submitted that ld CIT(A) has correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 36758160/-. He further submitted that as the net cash amount received is less than Rs. 9.05 crores the ld CIT(A) should not have upheld even the addition of Rs. 10610867/-. It was further pleaded that since the documents seized 4 Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, and 987/Del/2009 and 3520/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2008-09) during the course of search were found from the premises of the Director of the Company, order should have been passed taking recourse to the provision of section 153C of the Act and not u/s 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. For this the assessee relied upon the statement of the Shri Yogesh Gupta and further relied upon following two decisions:- a. Samta Khinda ITA No. 336/Del/2012 order dated 29.11.2016 b. M/s. Harsh Deep construction ITA No. 1741/Mum/2014 order dated 11.05.2016

9. The assessee further stated that the assessee is maintaining regular books of account. no corroborative evidence to annexure A-12 was brought on record and merely on lose sheet the addition had been made despite assessee making the handsome disclosure of Rs. 13 crores.

10. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. The ld CIT(A) has decided this issue as under:- “ I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant as well as the facts of the case. It is a fact that the appellant is carrying on the business of real estate and development of projects. Accordingly in the name of „Jasola‟ the assessee has sold some space to various customers and recorded the transactions of such sale on the papers/computer. These papers details the name of the person who booked the space, the extent of area sold, rate per sq.ft, total sale consideration, amount received in cheque, received in cash and outstanding balance. By analysing these papers, the A.O. has arrived the aggregate cash amount received by the assessee on this project during the year at Rs. 13,7869027/-. Since the assessee has admitted as income only to the extent of Rs. 905 crores the balance of Rs. 4,7369027/- is added as income of the assessee. Whereas it is contended by the assessee that some of the deals have been cancelled and some of them have been resold to other parties. But no benefit has been given by the A.O. to such contention of the assessee. I have perused the chart as well as the papers found during the course of search and also examined repayments made by cheques by the assessee to those persons who had cancelled their bookings. As far as mistake crept in respect of Sh. Ashok Narula, there is ample justification in the contention of the assessee. As per the chart prepared by the A.O. Sh. Ashok Narula has booked an area of 2686 sq.ft. @ Rs. 5725/-, thus the total amount payable on this space is referred as Rs. 1,53,77,350/-. Out of this, the A.O. has mentioned the cash portion at Rs. 94,01,100/- and cheque amount of Rs. 10 lakh as received by the assessee. In that case the outstanding amount should have been Rs. 49,76,250/- only. However, in the chart as prepared by the AO the outstanding amount is shown at Rs. 1,34,37,250/-. There appears to be clear mistake in tabulating the figures. As per the page 8 of the Annexure 12, the details of Sh. Ashok Narula are appearing, that of cash received as Rs. 9,40,100/- and cheque of Rs. 10 lakh said to have been paid by him for purchase of space from appellant. If these figures are taken into account, the amount mentioned as outstanding in the chart is tallying. Hence, there is a mistake in tabulating the correct figures in respect of cash portion. Since the mistake is apparent due credit should be given to the appellant on this ground. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 5 Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, and 987/Del/2009 and 3520/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2008-09)

84,61,000/- (being the difference of Rs 94,01,100/- and Rs 9,40,100/- ) is allowed as a deduction from the aggregate cash amount. In so far as cancellations are concerned, as per the assessee, in six cases the deal has been cancelled and a cash of Rs. 4,76,82,160/- has been returned alongwith the cheques paid by them at the time of original booking. In the case of Sh. Vikas Gupta the contention of the assessee is that the amount shown at Rs. 65,00,000/- was returned consequent to the cancellation of the deal. As per the details flat bearing No 404 is booked in his name initially and later the same has been sold to Khurana and cash of Rs 35,10,000/- was received and is part of total cash amount. There is no confirmation from Vikas Gupta on cancellation of the deal. There is no amount either received or repaid in cheque to deem it that the deal is cancelled and amount was returned to the purchaser. Under the circumstances, it is very difficult to accept the explanation of the assessee that the amount has been returned to Sh. Vikas Gupta on cancellation of deal. Hence no benefit can be given on this transaction. The next person who cancelled the deal is Mr. P.K.Jain from whom the assessee has received Rs. 800000/- as per the seized paper. The assessee has returned Rs. 40 lakh in cheque to Sh. P.K.Jain which was originally received in cheque while booking the space. To that extent there is a confirmation from Sh. P.K.Jain and the amount returned by the assessee duly recorded in the books and the cheque was encashed in the bank account. Hence the assessee should be given due credit for the cancellation of the deal and return of the cash as no person would keep his balance amount with the builder after cancellation of deal. The next deal is on account of Sh. Samir Bhutani. As per the documents, the assessee received Rs. 2,14,00,000/- for booking space of 3385 sq.ft. But no cheque amount was received from him. It is the contention of the assessee that it has repaid the full amount on cancellation. However, the said contention could not be accepted simply because no cheque was repaid to the said person in order to consider the genuineness of the claim of the assessee. The so called confirmation from this person does date. In that list the name of Sh Samir Bhutani is still figuring. Which confirms that there is no cancellation of deal? In the absence of establishing the fact of genuineness of the transaction of cancellation, the explanation of the assessee is deserves to be rejected. No credit can be given on this so called repayment of cash of Rs 2,14,00,000/- to Sh. Samit Bhutani. The next person who has cancelled the deal is Mr. Deepak Chakravorthy. Necessary details of receipt of the refund of cheque amount of Rs. 15 lakh was available from Sh. Deepak Chakravarthy. This cheque of Rs. 15 lakh was duly recorded in the books of the assessee and encashed in the bank account. 000/- as per the seized paper. The assessee has returned Rs. 40 lakh in cheque to Sh. P.K.Jain which was originally received in cheque while booking the space. To that extent there is a confirmation from Sh. P.K.Jain and the amount returned by the assessee duly recorded in the books and the cheque was encashed in the bank account. Hence the assessee should be given due credit for the cancellation of the deal and return of the cash as no person would keep his balance amount with the builder after cancellation of deal. The next deal is on account of Sh. Samir Bhutani. As per the documents, the assessee received Rs. 2,14,00,000/- for booking space of 3385 sq.ft. But no cheque amount was received from him. It is the contention of the assessee that it has repaid the full amount on cancellation. However, the said contention could not be accepted simply because no Cheque was repaid to the said person in order to consider the genuineness of the claim of 6 Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, and 987/Del/2009 and 3520/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2008-09) the assessee. The so called confirmation from this person does address etc. The entire transaction of receiving and repaying said to have been carried in cash only. For which there is no confirmation. In the course of appellate proceedings as directed the appellant filed list of investors as on date. In that list the name of Sh Samir Bhutani is still figuring. Which confirms that there is no cancellation of deal. In the absence of establishing the fact of genuineness of the transaction of cancellation, the explanation of the assessee is deserves to be rejected. No credit can be given on this so called repayment of cash of Rs 2,14,00,000/- to Sh. Samit Bhutani. The next person who has cancelled the deal is Mr. Deepak Chakravorthy. Necessary details of receipt of the refund of cheque amount of Rs. 15 lakh was available from Sh. Deepak Chakravarthy. This cheque of Rs. 15 lakh was duly recorded in the books of the assessee and encashed in the bank account. Therefore, it has been established that the deal is cancelled. Hence, the refund of cash of Rs. 4782160/- should be given due credit to the assessee from the aggregate amount of cash received during the year. Similarly in the case of Sh. Deepak Sanyal also, cheque amount was returned on cancellation. Consequently the cash amount mentioned Rs. 50 lakh also should be allowed as paid by the assessee on cancellation of the deal. Similar facts are ruling in the cancellation of the deal in the case of Sh. Parmesh Chand as well. The assessee has received Rs. 10 lakh by cheque and Rs. 20 lakh in cash. In consequence to the cancellation of the deal, the cheque was returned on 12.1.2006 for Rs. 10 lakh and there is a confirmation to that extent. Once the deal is cancelled, the customer would have received back the cash portion as well. Accordingly, Rs 20 lakh also to be given credit to assessee as deduction from the aggregate cash on account of this person. By virtue of above directions the appellant would get the benefit of Rs 2,82,43,160/- to be reduced from aggregate amount. Assessee is able to establish that in four out of six cases the original booking is cancelled. Thereby no amount can be treated as income on sale of space in the jasola project. As directed assessee filed details of advances received against bookings as at 31.3.2006 and on verification it is observed that the rate at which the flats were sold is ranging from Rs 5315/- to Rs 6300/-, which is as per seized documents, hence no adverse view can be taken. However the AO should verify the same in subsequent years about the consideration declared is in accordance with the rates shown or not.

In so far as entry made by hand is concerned, in some cases there are two different entries made on the computer print out. One entry as per printed version and the other one in hand writing. The hand written note refers to net cash received. In the case of Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra, the computer print out reflecting the cash portion at Rs. 4,79,00,000/- whereas the hand written note the cash amount received is shown at Rs. 3,65,00,000/- Similarly in respect of Khurana Budhiraja, Vikas Gupta, and P.K.Jain also hand written notes are appearing about the net cash received. It is vehemently argued that the assessee has received the cash as mentioned in writing than in printing. Hence the A.O. is not correct to take printed amount than the real amount mentioned in writing. I have gone through the various seized papers and found that some of the hand written amounts mentioned on the paper is corroborated with the details appearing in other seized papers i.e page no.6 &9. In the case of Vijay Kumar Misra the cash portion is referred to as Rs. 3.65 crores as mentioned in hand on page no.l. In view of corroborative 7 Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, and 987/Del/2009 and 3520/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2008-09) evidence found elsewhere in the seized documents the assessee should get relief to the extent of Rs 1,1.4,00,000/- being the difference of Rs 47900000/- and Rs 3,65,00,000/-. In respect of Vikas Gupta the cash mount referred by hand written note is Rs. 93,85,000/- whereas the AO has considered only Rs 65,00,000/-. There is no cheque portion involved in this particular deal. The entire transaction is in cash. At any point of time any consideration is received in the form of cheque. As a consequence the total amount mentioned in hand should be taken as full consideration. Hence the difference of Rs 28,85,000/- should be taken as cash received as siaeration for space booked. Accordingly this amount will be added to the aggregate cash amount. As far as other two persons appearing on page 1 is concerned no adjustment is required, as in Khurana case the difference of Rs 24,90,000/- is received in cheque as recorded by AO and since the total sale consideration is only Rs 60 lakhs, thereby no adjustment is required. In P.K.Jain case the deal is cancelled, hence there is no effect on the aggregate cash amount. In other cases due to lack of supporting evidences no adjustments undertaken. In the end the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of cancellations partly, hand written cash portion and mistake etc total of Rs 2,82,43,160/-( + )Rs l,14,00,000/-(-) Rs 28,85,000/- i.e Rs 3,67,58,160/-. Thereby the net addition sustained is Rs 1, 06, 10,867/- as against Rs 4,73,69,027/-. Accordingly the AO is directed to delete the balance amount of Rs 3, 67, 58,160/- from the total income as computed by him.”

therein the following issues are required to be adjudicated:- a. Whether the ld CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidences in violation of Rule 46 A of the Income Tax Rules, b. Whether the ld CIT(A) erred in granting the deduction of Rs. 84.61 lakhs holding it to be typographical mistakes. c. Whether the ld CIT(A) has correctly granted the relief of Rs. 19782160/- on the basis of unreliable evidences filed by the assessee. d. Whether the ld CIT(A) has correctly granted relief of Rs. 11400000/- to the assessee on account of Shri Vijay Mishra by holding that hand written papers seized from the assessee has more evidentiary value then the computer print outs.

12. On the issue of additional evidence the ld Departmental Representative could not show us which evidence filed before the ld CIT(A) were not before the ld Assessing Officer. The ld CIT(A) has mentioned that assessee has submitted before the ld Assessing Officer the details of the cancellation of the bookings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the ld CIT(A) has exceeded his jurisdiction. Furthermore, the ld CIT(A) has asked for verifying certain details such as list of investor as on date for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the claim of the assessee made before the ld Assessing Officer. Similarly, details of advances received Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, and 987/Del/2009 and 3520/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2008-09) against booking as on 31.03.2006 was also asked by the ld CIT(A) himself. The ld CIT(A) is empowered to call for such details under Rule 46A(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In view of this we reject ground No. 1 as well as ground NO. 3(b) of the appeal of the Revenue.

hand written note the cash amount was Rs. 3.65 crores. The ld CIT(A) has accepted the argument of the assessee that assessee has received cash as mentioned in hand written note only, because some of the hand written note on that paper is corroborated with details appearing in the other seized paper the above relief was granted. We do not find any justification in the reason of the ld CIT(A) in granting the above relief for the reason that there cannot be any rule that hand written note should be given preference against computer printouts as evidence. It is also a fact that total addition has been made and confirmed by the lower authorities are based on the same computer printouts. Therefore, merely because some amounts were written in hand written notes then without ascertaining in whose hands these are written as well as for the purpose for which they are written, such notes cannot be given the preference over the other reliable evidences. Further, when on identically, in case of Shri PK Jain, Shri Samir Bhuptani as well as in case of certain other persons as per page No. 176, the ld CIT(A) has not given any credit. On verification of page No. 179 and 180 along with each and every account the cash receipts figures are hand written. Further the ld CIT(A) has mentioned that corroborative evidences were found elsewhere in seized documents but he has not referred to those documents and their relevance. The computer printout placed at page No. 34 of the paper book filed by the revenue shows the complete account maintained in the form the Books of accounts showing the details of date of payment as well as the amount paid to Shri Yogesh Gupta. The computer printout according to us is a complete account of unaccounted and accounted receipts maintained by the assessee in accounting software where cash has been received through journal references, which are also numbered, therefore, it has more credence then unorganized and non-methodical hand written jottings. In view of this we reverse the finding of the ld CIT(A) to the granting of reduction in the addition made by the ld Assessing Officer by a sum of Rs. 11400000/-. In view of this, we confirmed the addition of Rs. 1.14 crores on this account.

. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and ground No. 6 is consequential in nature therefore, they are dismissed.

20. Ground No. 2 to 5 of the appeal contest the addition made by the Assessing Officer stating that addition made by the ld Assessing Officer of Rs. 4.73 crores as the cash received by the 10 Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, and 987/Del/2009 and 3520/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2008-09) assessee as per Annexure 12 is Rs. 13.78 crores whereas, the actual cash received is only Rs. 9.24 crores. It is further contended that assessee has already disclosed Rs. 9.05 crores surrendering voluntarily against such income. As in the appeal of the Revenue we have already upheld the addition made by the ld Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 22010867/-, for the reasons given therein, we dismiss the above grounds of appeal of the assessee.

21. Further, the assessee has raised an issue that above seized documents were found from the residence of the director and not the company. Therefore, the notice u/s 153C should have been issued by the Assessing Officer instead of notice u/s 153A of the Act. We reject the contention of the assessee for the reason that documents were found from the Director of the company and documents were also pertaining to the company. Even otherwise, the search was initiated u/s 132 of the Act against the company, the documents were also found of the company, therefore, the argument of the assessee does not survive as proceedings in the case of the company are held to be correctly initiated u/s 153A of the Act. Further the decision cited by the ld AR are also not with respect to relationship of director and company and therefore they are distinguishable on the facts of the case.

22. The second contention of the assessee was that no corroborative evidence in Annexure A-12 was brought into record. It is further contended that the assessee is maintaining regular books of accounts which are audited and not rejected. It is further contended that when handsome surrender of Rs. 13 crore is made the ld AO should not have made this addition. We do not find any force in these arguments for the reason that addition has been made on the basis of Annexure A-12 coupled with the statement of the Director of the company wherein answer to Question No. 6 the details of disclosure are given. Further, in answer to question No. 12 complete account of cash received by the assessee was found and explained by the directors. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld Assessing Officer in making the above addition.

23. In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

24. In the result appeals for Assessment Year 2006-07 in filed by the assessee is dismissed and ITA No. 987/Del/2009 filed by the Revenue is partly allowed.

(Assessment Year 2008-09) 25. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-II, New Delhi dated 26.04.2012 raising following grounds of appeal:

11. Realtech Project Pvt. Ltd, Vs. DCIT, and 987/Del/2009 and 3520/Del/2012 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2008-09)

1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 76,81,1007- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained expenditure. 2 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in holding that the income/expenditure as mentioned in the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer get covered by the surrender made in the hands of flagship concern of the group M/s Realtech Construction Pvt. Ltd. Without appreciating the fact that those documents pertained to the assessee company. 3 (a) The order of the CIT (A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts.

made the disclosure. Hence, she stated that the ld Assessing Officer in the hands of the assessee correctly makes addition as the seized paper shows the expenditure pertaining to the assessee and project owned by it. She further vehemently stated that it cannot be a case that disclosure is made by one person and despite adequate evidence against the other person no addition can be made in the hands of the other person when the first person own such disclosure.

both the companies have also been passed on the same date i.e. 30/12/ 2010. From the perusal of the assessment order of the M/s Realtech Construction Pvt Ltd I found that amount have been surrendered and taxed in the hands of M/s Realtech construction Pvt Ltd and the same have been accepted by the assessing officer. In view of the above the amount found recorded on the seized paper have suffered double taxation which is against the principle of natural justice and as such the taxation of the amount found recorded on the seized papers is not justified in the hands of the appellant company. From the perusal of seized material on the basis of which addition have been made I found these are cash vouchers in which amount, date along with the particulars of transactions is mentioned. On the cash voucher name of the appellant company „Realtech Project‟ is printed as such apparently it appears that these transactions pertain to appellant company. However in this connection the appellant have contended that all the transactions does not belong to appellant as from the reading of the details mentioned on the cash vouchers indicate that the same belong to other group constituents of Realtech group. From the perusal of the particulars I also found that contention of the appellant hold good as the transaction mentioned on the seized papers that the transactions is related to directors as well as other group constituents of the Realtech group. Further the AO has made the addition u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act. In this connection it is important to mention the judicial ruling in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Lubtec India 311 ITR 175 in which it has been held that It is quite clear that what is postulated in section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is that first of all the appellant must have incurred that expenditure and thereafter, if the explanation offered by the appellant about the source of such expenditure is not found satisfactory by the Assessing Officer, the amount may be added to his income.”