9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether discrepancies in stock were found during a survey under the Income-tax Act. 2. Justification of the addition of Rs. 80,000 despite lack of consent from the assessee. 3. Validity of sustaining an addition in total income without discrepancies in the books of accounts. 4. Reasonableness of the addition of Rs. 80,000 in the total income. Analysis: 1. The assessee declared a total sale of Rs. 6.77 crores with a GP rate of 17.97% for the assessment year 1995-96. During a survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, the assessee surrendered Rs. 10 lakhs due to excess cash. The GP rate before and after the survey was compared, leading to an addition of Rs. 80,000 being sustained by the Tribunal based on a mutual agreement during the hearing. 2. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the addition of Rs. 80,000 was challenged by the appellant, arguing that there was no consent from the assessee for the addition. However, the High Court held that the question of whether the assessee agreed to the addition proposed by the Tribunal was settled by the specific finding recorded in the Tribunal's order, which was not disputed by the assessee before the Tribunal. 3. Citing the observations of the Supreme Court in Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar, the High Court emphasized that once an agreement is made before a Tribunal, it cannot be disputed later unless specific steps are taken to rectify the record. In this case, since the assessee agreed to the addition before the Tribunal, the correctness of the addition could not be re-examined. 4. Ultimately, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the case, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The legal position was clear that once an agreement is made before a Tribunal, it cannot be challenged later without following the appropriate procedures to rectify the record.
|
