2009 (7) TMI 49 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of evidences collected during survey u/s 133A rough notes - A survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 17.9.1999 and certain loose papers and documents were found. The Assessing Officer held that trading results declared by the assessee were not verifiable. The assessee could not co-relate the transactions in the books of accounts with the RG register. Since the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, he made addition to the declared income held that books of account maintained by the assessee were duly audited and Assessing Officer had not pointed out any specific defect whatsoever in such books of account maintained by the assessee addition can not be made.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of evidence found during survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Assessment of trading results based on reconciling transactions in books of accounts with other documents.
3. Validity of addition to declared income by Assessing Officer.
4. Justification of CIT (A) in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of evidence found during a survey conducted under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer raised concerns about the verifiability of trading results declared by the assessee based on the material recovered during the survey. However, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal found that the assessee was able to reconcile the material with the return already filed, addressing the defects pointed out by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the loose slips found during the survey were explained and reconciled by the assessee, leading to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer's rejection of the books of account was unjustified.

2. The assessment of trading results was a key issue in the case, as the Assessing Officer made an addition to the declared income due to concerns about the correlation of transactions in the books of accounts with the RG register. The CIT (A) set aside the addition, emphasizing that the assessee successfully reconciled the material recovered during the survey with the return already filed. The Tribunal affirmed this finding, highlighting that the defects pointed out by the Assessing Officer were reconciled and explained by the assessee, ultimately justifying the deletion of the addition.

3. The validity of the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the declared income was challenged in the appeal. The revenue contended that the explanation provided by the assessee was not proper, and the findings of the Assessing Officer should have been upheld. However, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal disagreed, maintaining that the assessee adequately explained and reconciled the discrepancies, leading to the deletion of the addition.

4. The justification of the CIT (A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer was a crucial aspect of the case. The revenue argued that the CIT (A) and the Tribunal erred in appreciating the material recovered during the survey and that their findings were perverse. However, the Court held that the findings were not perverse, as both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal thoroughly examined the evidence and arrived at a concurrent finding of fact. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that no substantial question of law was involved in the case.