9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are written properly on the basis of such documents. Since the appellant had not made any efforts towards that direction, it cannot be said that the appellant had satisfactorily explained the source for the credits made in the books of account. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made in the earlier year's assessment is also not proved. The very fact that the appellant is resorting to this explanation shows that the account books maintained by him are not correct and complete in all respects and an attempt has been made to suppress the income. In the circumstances, the explanation offered by the appellant deserves to be rejected. The Assessing Officer is justified in making the impugned addition of Rs. 2,13,982." In second appeal by the appellant, the Tribunal confirmed the orders of the authorities below and dismissed the appeal. Shri P. Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant had credited certain amounts in his books of account relating to his proprietary busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, submits that no credit could be given for the additions made in the earlier years as there was no such claim made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer or before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for adjusting the cash shortage with the additions made in the earlier years. Senior counsel relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kulwant Kaur [1980] 121 ITR 914 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Anantharain Veerasinghaiah and Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 and submitted that it is for the assessee to establish that the additions made for the earlier assessment years are available for making any investment in the business for this year. Senior counsel brought to our notice the relevant portion of the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny satisfactory explanation. It is in those circumstances, the Assessing Officer took the peak deficiency of cash occurred on May 23, 1988, amounting to Rs. 2,13,982.09 and observed that the appellant has utilised a minimum of unaccounted cash amounting to Rs. 2,13,982.09 during the year for his day-to-day business requirements. The explanation offered by the appellant as already noted was that the accountant of the firm had left the service and the firm had to engage a new accountant to write the accounts and that he had committed clerical mistakes. The Tribunal has clearly found that this cannot be treated as a clerical mistake. The Tribunal has considered the question as to whether the appellant had produced proof as to why the amounts w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he credits made in his books, the Assessing Officer should have taken that the said credits came out of the additions made for the earlier years which was much more than the peak credit taken by the officer for making the addition. As already noted, the appellant had not chosen to take the alternate contention before the Assessing Officer either at the time of the original assessment or before the first appellate authority in the first instance or at any rate, before the Assessing Officer while fresh assessment was made on the basis of the remand order. If, as a matter of fact, the addition made for the earlier years was available for making the credit in his books for the assessment year concerned, he should have raised the contention befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
