2011 (3) TMI 1533

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d at the same time of inspection? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in sustaining the assessment order based on the findings which were neither available at the time of inspection nor at the time of assessment?" It is seen from the records that in respect of the assessment year 1996-97, there was an inspection in the business premises on December 5, 1996 noticing the following defects: 1. Day book was not written after November 13, 1996. 2. The stock book maintained had not been posted up to date. 3. On production of accounts on January 26, 1997, before the enforcement wing officials, the opening stock of goods as on April 1, 1996 and the purchases during the period from April 1, 1996 to December 4, 1996 and the sale from ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ference to slip 4, the appellate authority held that it was only a cash transaction, hence, they treated as addition. As regards slip No. 5, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner pointed out that the names of the parties and the amount payable and goods supplied as per books of accounts related to cash transactions. With reference to slip No. 7, it was noted that it related to the payment due from the assessee and there was no sale involved. Thus out of seven slips, suppression as regards slip No. 1 was sustained apart from a portion in slip No. 7. Rest of the additions was deleted. The corresponding addition and probable omission were also cancelled. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the Revenue went on appeal before the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter November 13, 1996 and physical verification of the stock taken on December 4, 1996 showed the deficiencies in actual stock. Apart from it, certain slips were also recovered indicating the suppression. In the course of the enquiry, the assessee disowned the slips as not pertaining to the business. However, on a perusal of slip No. 1, it related to the business transactions and consequently, the assessment was made. As far as slip No. 1 is concerned, there is no dispute in the present revision, since the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the addition of assessment made on the slip. As regards slip No. 2, the assessee had no material to substantiate the contention that it related to cash transactions. The view of the Appellate As....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also made in the receipts on various dates, hence, they were only cash transactions and not sale. As already pointed out, slip Nos. 3 and 6 relate to cash transactions for the period prior to the date of inspection. Even though the assessee had not produced any evidence through the parties, with whom the assessee had cash transactions yet the accounts of the parties indicated receipt and payment on various dates. The fact, however, remains that even though the assessee treated it as a loan transaction, absolutely no materials were brought forth by letting in evidence from the parties to substantiate the claim. The assessee is a manufacturer and dealer in stainless steel items. In the absence of material to show that they were only cash tra....