9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO noticed certain discrepancies in the books of accounts produced by him. The discrepancies noted were as under: 1. The assessee had made certain purchases from a sister concern Jagdamba Textiles, Pali, on 20th October 1976. Such purchases were at Rs. 3,85,540. These purchases were debited in the books of accounts on 20th October 1976. The closing stock shown as on 22nd October 1976 was only of Rs. 1,05,827. From 20th October 1976, the date of purchase of the above goods to 22nd October 1976, the last date of accounting period sales made by the assessee were only of Rs. 5600. Thus, there was discrepancy in the closing stock to the extent of Rs. 2,74,113. 2. Another discrepancy pointed out by the ITO is that on 24th December 1975 "Juli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s books from him and vouchers relating thereto. He, therefore, held that there was no compliance to notice under section 142(1) of Income-tax Act. He, therefore, proceeded to make ex parte assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act. 4. The assessee moved an application under section 146 against the assessment framed under section 144 stating that the books of accounts could not be produced as there were none and therefore the order passed under section 144 should be set aside for fresh assessment after giving the assessee opportunity in the matter. The ITO rejected the application as he continued to hold the view that the assessee was having duplicate set of books of accounts and vouchers but the assessee was deliberately withhold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITO were overwritten, had already been impounded by the ITO and it fact adverse inference had already been drawn in the case of Jagdamba Textiles for the discrepancies noted in the books of accounts of the assessee. Shri Ranka further urged that if at all discrepancies were noticed by the ITO in the books accounts, he could have made additions if such discrepancies remained unexplained. He had actually no material to come to the conclusion that the assessee was maintaining duplicate set of books accounts. The ld. D.R. vehemently argued that the assessee had withheld the books of accounts and vouchers from the department and supported the orders of the authorities, below. . We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We agree w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
