2011 (6) TMI 720

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Merely because the assessee's explanation, as regards the subsequent accounting of the unaccounted purchase had been rejected by the officer, that by itself would not justify the equal time addition towards probable suppression. In the absence of any further material to substantiate that the assessee had been habitually indulging in suppressed transaction, we do not find any ground to substantiate further addition under the head of probable omission. In the circumstances, even though it is a revision, we are constrained to accept the case of the assessee on further addition made on equal time addition for probable omission. Tax case revision is partly allowed deleting the addition made under the head of probable addition which is equal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... purchases which were unaccounted for at the time of inspection were subsequently accounted, and hence, in the circumstances, the question of treating it as unaccounted transaction did not arise. The officer considered the said submission and held that the purchases which were found unaccounted at the time of inspection on September 23, 1996 were not proved to be accounted. In the circumstances, the proposals were confirmed. As against the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who rejected the contention of the assessee as regards the claim for subsequent accounting of ₹ 2,28,177. However, the order of the assessing officer in respect of addition of two times towards probable omission was restri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was let in by the assessee to substantiate the said contention as regards the subsequent accounting of the unaccounted transaction. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered the claim of the assessee and ultimately rejected the plea of the assessee. However, as regards two times addition, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner pointed out that there was no recovery and any material, except two slips to warrant further addition. Consequently, he confirmed the equal addition for probable omission. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as a final fact finding body found that when the assessee had admitted the stock difference and the suppression and that the assessee failed to rewrite the stock difference, rightly the assessing officer trea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X