R.S. SYAL, A.M.: ORDER These cross-appeals one by assessee and other by Revenue arise out of order passed by CIT(A) on 15th March, 2002 in relation to asst. yr. 1994-95. 2 . Since common issue is raised in both appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them of by this consolidated order for sake of convenience. 3. first ground of assessee s appeal, being general, does not call for any adjudication. 4 . Ground No. 2 was not pressed by learned Authorised Representative. same is, therefore, dismissed. 5 . Ground No. 3 of assessee s appeal and ground No. 1 of Revenue s appeal deal with addition made on account of entries in diary. 6 . Briefly stated, facts of these grounds are that survey was conducted under s. 133A on 3rd and 4th Oct., 1996 at business premises of M/s Rajasthan Commercial House, in which diary containing transactions not recorded in regular books was found. Photocopy of this diary, marked as Annex. 18, was obtained. partners of firm submitted that entries in this diary related to construction of boundary wall/room on agricultural land owned by Shri Raj Kumar and his brothers. AO issued notice under s. 148 in response to which it was stated on behalf of assessee that return filed on 31st Jan., 1997 may be treated as in compliance to notice under s. 148. In respect of entries in diary, it was stated that details of investment of Rs. 64,861 in boundary wall were contained therein. source of this amount was explained to be out of withdrawals of Rs. 28,050 from M/s Rajasthan Commercial House and remaining amount from amount left by his mother at time of her death in 1992. letter dt. 8th Oct., 1996 was filed by assessee with Addl. CIT and another letter dt. 5th Nov., 1996 with CIT, Jaipur, stating that figures in original diary were tampered by Revenue officials by adding zero at end of figures or by putting either 1 or some other numerical in beginning of figures. Such alterations were in different ink. By way of evidence, photocopies of diary, stated to be before and after such tampering, were filed with Addl. CIT. AO found that while first page did indicate changes made in entries, yet other pages did not suggest so. On page No. 4 of impugned order, AO observed that different figures are appearing in both sets of diary relevant to p. 1 as under : Sl. No. Untampered figures Tampered figures 1. 750 7500 2. 2025 20250 3. 2120 21200 4. 600 6000 AO was of opinion that these changes might have been made by t h e assessee himself for his own advantage and his earlier record also suggested misbehaviour with survey party. He, therefore, concluded that entries in this diary were not recorded in regular books of account, total of which comes to (Rs. 7,60,425 + 42,802) Rs. 8,03,225. This amount was treated as unexplained investment for year in question. AO further did not agree with contention that transactions and details contained in diary related to construction of boundary wall as there was no mention about material used and that signatures of Shri Hakim Beg, Jagdish and Hemraj, appearing against transactions in diary and explained as of persons engaged in construction, were not proved. AO further took note of confirmation of Shri Hakim Beg stating receipt of Rs. 56,200 for construction of boundary wall was on simple paper without attested signatures. He further observed that these three persons were also not produced for confirming contention about entries being related to construction activity. AO further referred to stated investment of Rs. 64,861 whereas report of approved valuer put cost at Rs. 72,600. As regards explanation of source of Rs. 25,050 being amount withdrawn from M/s Rajasthan Agency, AO noted that these withdrawals by very nature of entries in this regard indicated household withdrawals. As regards explanation for remaining amount of cash having been left by mother at her death, same was also found to be unsubstantiated. He, therefore, took investment at Rs. 72,600 as per approved valuer s report in addition to addition made for diary by holding that such transactions did not relate to construction. Resultantly, additions of Rs. 72,600 and Rs. 8,03,228 were made separately by AO. In first appeal, it was contended on behalf of assessee that diary was taken on 4th Oct., 1996 without Panchnama and returned on 5th Oct., 1996 whereupon changes in originally recorded figures were noted and matter was brought to notice of then Addl. CIT. It was further explained that diary contained transactions in respect of agricultural land and was written by Shri Pushpendra, brother of assessee. contentions made before AO were reiterated. It was also argued that narration in this diary clearly evidenced purchase of Chuna (lime), labour, advances to Mistry, cost of seeds/fertilizers. It was also stated that cost pertaining to impugned assessment year recorded originally in diary was Rs. 54,861. learned CIT(A) called for comments from AO who vide his letter dt. 4th Feb., 2002 replied that contention of assessee for tampering of diary by Revenue officials was not fully correct. It was also reported that Shri Hakim Beg was not produced to confirm contents of so-called confirmation. learned CIT(A) took up hearing in presence of AO and noted that contention of assessee about tampering of figures was correct. He also took note of admission made by AO that at least first page of diary was found to be different. It was further noted that placing/position of zero was made in such manner as end result came entirely different. He took note of following entries in this regard : Entries on p. 4 Entries on p. 14 322000 525 Urea 800 500 Urai 40200 7500 34600 250 5600 20250 21200 1020 520 3045 6000 He further took note of fact that brief narration given against some of amounts in diary indicated expenditure on lime against farm. He further noted entries with narration "cleaning of wheat and fertilizers as DAP and urea against seeds". These pages contained signatures of Hemraj, Hakim Beg and Jagdish. learned first appellate authority further noted that AO had not at any stage asked for production of Shri Hakim Beg or any other person except Shri Pushpendra who had reportedly made these entries in diary. No summons were found to have been issued on any person. In light of these facts, it was concluded that AO was not justified in making these two additions totalling Rs. 8,75,828 (8,03,228 + 72,600). Considering entire material on record, learned CIT(A) concluded that unexplained investment was to be considered in construction activity at agricultural land as well as for expenses on agriculture, in relation to which entries were recorded in diary. He further noted that valuer s report gave figure of Rs. 72,600. He, therefore, held that total expenditure of construction and for agriculture, such as, fertilizer, seeds, etc. be fairly estimated at Rs. 1,40,000. He, therefore, sustained addition to this level while deleting two additions made by AO amounting to Rs. 8,75,828. Both sides have come up in appeal against their respective stands. 7 . We have heard both sides and perused relevant material on record. It is observed that total of entries in diary in respect of investment in boundary wall was to tune of Rs. 64,861. contention of assessee explaining source being withdrawals of Rs. 28,050 from M/s Rajasthan Commercial House and remaining amount having emanated from amount left by his mother at time of her death cannot be accepted. Insofar as amount of Rs. 28,050 is concerned, we shall discuss same with reference to ground No. 2 of Revenue s appeal infra which deals with t h e addition on account of household expenses. As regards remaining amount, no evidence worth name has been placed on record, either before authorities below or before us, indicating assessee s mother having left any cash at time of her death, which was utilised in construction. Insofar as contention of assessee regarding tampering of entries is concerned, same has been established by way of partial admission by AO and contents of first appellate authority s order extracted above, which indicate that alterations were made to figures but subsequent figures resulting therefrom remained unchanged. For example, entry at p. 4, as tampered to 322000, does not give result of 40200 when 800 is added or subtracted from it. Thus, it is clear that entries so altered cannot be considered as reliable evidence for determining quantum of income. report of approved valuer indicated investment at Rs. 72,600 in construction. When other segments of entries in diary, being expenses for agricultural operation, are also considered, in our considered opinion learned CIT(A) justifiably adopted this figure at Rs. 1,40,000. This amount represents additions on account of investment in construction as well as other expenses noted in diary. We, therefore, uphold impugned order on this score. 8. last effective ground of assessee s appeal about charging of interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C, being consequential, is disposed of accordingly. 9 . only other ground of Revenue s appeal, which survives for our consideration, is deletion of addition of Rs. 16,950 made by AO on account of inadequate withdrawals for household expenses. 10. assessee has shown total withdrawals at Rs. 43,050, inclusive of above discussed amount of Rs. 28,050. AO estimated household expenses at Rs. 5,000 per month and made addition of Rs. 16,950 (60,000 - 43,050). learned CIT(A) did not sustain any addition on this count on ground that amount of Rs. 28,050 was considered as available to assessee for household expenses. 1 1 . Having heard both sides and perused relevant material on record, we observe that this finding of learned first appellate authority is not sustainable on ground that amount of Rs. 28,050 stood considered in household expenses declared by assessee before AO also, as figure of Rs. 43,050 taken note of by AO comprised of this amount of Rs. 28,050 also. It is noted from assessment order that AO based his finding for estimating household expenses at Rs. 5,000 per month on basis of finding of learned CIT(A) in case of assessee s brother, Shri Pushpendra Pokharna, to effect that household expenses could not have been less than Rs. 5,000 per month. No material has been placed on record to show that this finding has been reversed or modified in subsequent appellate proceedings. We are, therefore, of considered opinion that estimate of household expenses made by AO is justified at Rs.5,000 per month and sustenance of addition to tune of Rs. 16,590 as originally made by AO is warranted. By setting aside impugned order, we restore finding of AO on this count. 12. In result, appeal of Revenue is partly allowed and that of assessee is dismissed. *** RAJ KUMAR POKHARNA v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX