had been shown only for 11 months, but he continued in employment till he died. There was a letter produced at the trial under Ex.P7, dated 20.06.1994 that showed the enhancement of the salary to Rs.25,200/-. The proof of the contents of letter could be secured from the TDS challans produced that showed a payment of tax at Rs.5,000/- for April, May and June treating the income to be Rs.25,200/-. Therefore, the computation of income from his employment in M/s Bhiwani Synthetics could not have been made for a rate less than Rs.25,200/- per month. As regards the contention that he was also a Consultant in M/s Excel Motors, the Accountant from the said Company was examined as PW3, who produced documents P12 to P17, which were the ledger and cash book to say that Rs.8,000/- was being paid per month as consultancy charges. In the cross-examination, it was elicited that M/s Excel Motors had not advertised for the post of Consultant and that the dispatch register showing the payment did not refer to the dispatches alleged to have been made to the deceased. I cannot take this cross-examination to completely discount the finding of evidence brought through PW3/12 to PW3/17 and the oral evidence tendered by the witness PW3. The receipt of Rs.8,000/- per month was reflected also in the IT returns and, therefore, I will not have cause for suspicion that he was not engaged as a Consultant and that he was not being paid the said sum. I would, therefore, take the total income to be Rs.33,200/- and having regard to the fact that he was a high bracket of income, I will make a deduction of 20% as going towards tax and find the component of tax at Rs.6,640/-. I will take the income tax to be Rs.26,560/- per month.
