AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 133 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was conducted at the business premises of the assessee. While the case was being processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the case was selected for scrutiny. The books of accounts that was produced were impounded under Section 141(3) of the Act. It transpires that in the survey, certain loose papers were found and since the same was not produced during the course of assessment proceedings, the books of accounts was rejected and a turnover of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- was estimated by applying a percentage of commission of 1.75%. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the balance sheet noticed that the assessee had shown a liability for supply of sarees at Rs. 1,32,39,095/-. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he reasons given by the Commissioner of Income Tax in its order under Section 264 of the Act passed in the case of the assessee and his brothers for the assessment year 1998-99, the addition under Section 68 of the Act was liable to be deleted. The appellate authority found that no addition could be made only because the weaver could not remember the exact amount that was to be paid by the assessee to them. The department, being aggrieved, filed a second appeal before the Tribunal, which was partly allowed. The Tribunal held that the books of accounts were liable to be rejected under Section 145 of the Act but since the book results were better than the earlier years and there was no material on record to show that the assessee had earned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been brought on record to indicate that the department had preferred any further appeal. Consequently, we are of the opinion that since the factual controversy was the same, the Tribunal considered the said decisions as well as in the case of Mohd. Akhlaq, which was also similar in nature and came to the conclusion that since the facts being similar the assessee was entitled for the same relief. Nothing has been indicated by the learned counsel that the case of the assessee in the present assessment year is different to the case of the appellant and his brother Saidullah in the previous assessment year 1999-00 nor anything has been brought on record to indicate that the findings of the Tribunal that the case of the assessee was not sim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e essential requirement is, that credit should be shown in the account that would satisfy the requirement of Section 68 of the Act. Once the credit so mentioned in the section was found to be not supported by any acceptable evidence than the sum so credited would be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee. The learned counsel consequently, contended that Section 68 of the Act not only includes cash credit but may also include a credit representing the value of the supplies made by the suppliers on credit and, consequently, the unexplained liability could be added to the income of the assessee, if no satisfactory explanation was given. In Sundar Lal Jain Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow 117 ITR 316 a Division Bench of thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances available on record. The opinion the Assessing Officer is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material available on record. Application of mind is the sine qua non for forming the opinion." In Sumati Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 214 ITR 801 the Supreme Court held:- "....... But, in view of section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such a case there is, prima facie, evidence against the asessee, viz., th....