9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.151/Kol/2008 for the assessment year 1995-96. The appeal was admitted on 23rd March, 2010 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.3,10,374/- under the heading "Trading Account" being the estimated profit at the rate of 8.4% on the excess stock amounted to Rs.36.09 lakhs is vitiated in law ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.49,640/- under being the estimated profit at the rate of 8.65% on the alleged unaccounted purchase price of goods at Rs.5,72,732/- amounts to double taxation on the same goods ? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.10,25,022/- as c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er found in the other floors of the building and the assessee could not show any separate trade licence, sale memo, purchase memo, books of account etc. in the individual name of the three other persons. During the course of assessment, the assessee filed a list of total stock as on the date of survey i.e., 9th September, 1994, according to which, the assessee-firm had a stock of Rs.12,58,555.01 whereas the other three firms had stock of different values. Thus, the explanation sought to be offered by the assessee was that the total stock was not exclusively of the assessee-firm. The Assessing Officer did not accept the stand of the assessee as the assessee could not explain the excess physical stock found during the course of survey and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Tribunal rightly took note of the facts and refused to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) which had granted partial relief to the assessee and in the absence of any error or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the substantial question of law no.1 is answered against the assessee. With regard to the substantial question of law no.2, the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings found that as per the "Mahajani Khata" marked as 'SKM-8' found during the course of survey, the assessee-firm had purchased goods worth Rs.5,72,732/- from different parties during the period 1st April, 1994 to 31st March, 1995. The assessee failed to produce any supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w no.2 is answered against the assessee. So far as substantial question of law no.3 is concerned, this also pertains to sums of money paid to the different parties by the assessee-firm during the aforementioned period and the payments were not found recorded in the books of account of the assessee firm. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the same as undisclosed income and added it to the total income. This order was affirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee challenged the said order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the submission of the revenue that there was no explanation furnished by the assessee for not recording the payments in the books of account and, therefore, the Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
