Actual suppression and penalty can stand on documentary evidence, but speculative equal additions require independent proof.

Actual suppression can be sustained on reliable documentary material, but an equal addition based only on probable omission requires independent evidence; on that footing, the corresponding penalty cannot survive. For the earlier year, lorry receipts bearing the assessee's name and address supported the finding of suppression, so that addition was upheld, while the speculative equal addition and penalty were deleted. For the later year, stock discrepancy, D7 slips, uncaptured lorry receipts and invoices showed purchase suppression and incomplete books, so both the additions and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition and penalty for the assessment year 1993-94, based on actual suppression and an equal addition towards probable omission, were sustainable; (ii) Whether the addition and penalty for the assessment year 1994-95, based on stock discrepancy, D7 records and uncaptured invoices, were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the addition and penalty for the assessment year 1993-94, based on actual suppression and an equal addition towards probable omission, were sustainable.

Analysis: The assessment for 1993-94 was supported by lorry receipts showing the assessee's name and address, which constituted material evidence for actual suppression. The concurrent finding of suppression on that basis was therefore upheld. However, the equal addition made merely on the footing of probable omission and suppression was not supported by concrete evidence. In the absence of independent material, that addition could not be sustained, and the corresponding penalty also could not stand.

Conclusion: The actual suppression addition was sustained in favour of the Revenue, but the equal addition for probable omission and the corresponding penalty were deleted in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition and penalty for the assessment year 1994-95, based on stock discrepancy, D7 records and uncaptured invoices, were sustainable.

Analysis: For 1994-95, the inspection revealed stock discrepancy and recovery of multiple D7 slips, which reflected purchase suppression. The seized records, together with uncaptured lorry receipts and invoices, showed that the books were not complete and correct and that transactions were being carried outside the books. On that material, the actual suppression, the equal addition for probable omission and the penalty were held to be justified.

Conclusion: The additions and penalty for the assessment year 1994-95 were sustained in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were allowed only to the limited extent of deleting the equal addition and related penalty for 1993-94, while the assessment, addition and penalty for 1994-95 were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Actual suppression may be sustained on reliable documentary material, but an equal addition for probable omission requires independent evidence; where seized records and stock discrepancy establish suppression and incomplete accounts, the addition and penalty are sustainable.

---