9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The issues involved in this case are whether there was evidence to support the Tribunal's findings on the assessment of the assessee based on peak unaccounted money, and whether the additions in respect of extra profit should be made in certain circumstances.
Summary: Assessment of Peak Unaccounted Money: The assessee, a dealer in kirana, supari, and foodgrains, was found to have inflated the total on the liabilities side of its balance-sheet, along with other irregularities in the account books for multiple years. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened assessment proceedings for several years and added the total differences to the income of the assessee. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) upheld the ITO's orders, rejecting the assessee's contentions regarding balance-sheet excess and peak credits. The Tribunal, however, held that the unaccounted money used in the business and the balance-sheet excess represented the assessee's own moneys, justifying that the two items were not separate. The Tribunal also disagreed with the department's view on the availability of the difference in explaining similar differences in subsequent years. It concluded that the additions in each year should be nil if the addition based on peak money used exceeded extra profit, and vice versa. Connection Between Unaccounted Money and Excess Assets/Extra Profits: The Tribunal's findings were challenged as speculative by the department, as there was no direct evidence linking unaccounted moneys, excess assets, and extra profits. However, the Tribunal's inferences were supported by the fact that the correct total of assets consistently exceeded liabilities, mainly due to closing stock. The Tribunal's inference that unaccounted money and excess assets were connected was deemed valid, as was the connection between unaccounted money and extra profits based on the assessee's statement and department's acceptance. The Court held that the findings were not speculative but supported by the material on record, ruling in favor of the assessee. In conclusion, the Court answered the questions in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the connection between unaccounted money, excess assets, and extra profits as valid grounds for the Tribunal's findings.
|
