9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agar is engaged in the business of manufacturing incense sticks. Return of income was filed for the assessment year in question onDecember 31, 1995showing total income of Rs. 6,47,211. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act onFebruary 22, 1996. Survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act was conducted in the business premises onOctober 3, 1994. During the course of survey, a trading account was prepared on the basis of which stock as per books of account was found, amounting to Rs. 20,61,886 whereas the stock on the date of survey was worked out to Rs. 40,90,083. There was excess stock of Rs. 20,28,197. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer accepted the book results taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He has submitted that appeal preferred by the Revenue ought to have been allowed. As new material was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the matter ought to have been remitted to the Assessing Officer. 6. Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that goods were entered in the stock register, though sales to the extent of Rs. 1,59,755 could not be recorded, however, the vouchers were received later on and they were submitted. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not committed any error of law in allowing the appeal deleting the addition of Rs. 1,59,755. The deletion of Rs. 7,07,079 was justified as the goods were not only enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.00 2. S. H. Kelkar and Co. Ltd.,Bombay CL-21058/24-9-1994 21,316.88 3. Shri Krishna and Co.,Delhi 1975/20-9-1994 76,070.88 4. do. 1988/24-9-1994 43,940.00 5. do. 2001/28-9-1994 539,136.00 Total 7,07,079.00 5. Thus, according to the counsel, the Assessing Officer was not justified in not accepting the above purchases totalling to Rs. 7,07,079. He further submitted that the goods were received onOctober 1, 1994andOctober 2, 1994, and entered in the purchase registers. In such circumstances the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting these purchases. It is interesting to note that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 11. The entire reading of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal indicates that since the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed hence the appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed, no reason has been shown for allowing the appeal with respect to the addition of Rs.1,59,755 filed by the assessee. We find that order passed by the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to be in accordance with law, the same is ordered to be restored with respect to the amount of Rs. 1,59,755. 12. Accordingly, we answer the substantial question of law No. 1 to the effect that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the addition made of Rs. 1,59,755 for unrecorded purchase, recorded by the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
