2016 (8) TMI 812

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... way of Tax Appeal No.1207/2007 the Appellant - Department has challenged the order dated 30.11.2006 of the above Tribunal in ITA No.2165/Ahd/1995 for the Assessment Year : 1991-1992. Both the above appeals pertain to one common assessee. 2. While admitting Tax Appeal No.1358/2007 on 29.02.2008, the following substantial question of law was framed by the Court for consideration :- "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in sustaining the additions to the extent of Rs. 2,71,350/- as against Rs. 27,13,500/- made by the Assessing Officer, after rejecting the books of accounts u/s. 145 of the Act?" 3. While admitting Tax Appeal No.1207/2007 on 29.02.2008, the following substantial questions of law were framed by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rifiable by the Assessing Officer. The first one is the sale bill of 6.4.1990 and certain other bills to justify the valuation of closing stock at the market price. As regards the second contention, RG.1 register and RT.12 were taken into consideration, which were checked by Excise authorities from time to time and the contention of the Revenue is that records what is entered therein are not what are kept outside. As regards the third contention, the statement of Shri Sunil Maradia as relied upon by the Assessing Officer was found to be of no help because it was retracted subsequently and in view of the fact that no defects in purchase and sale have been pointed out in the year under consideration and the consumption and production and proc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly on presumption basis, (iv) Assessee was not confronted with the said registers and quantity shown in Excise Challan i.e. 57F(2) were tallying with the receipts in the registers. Reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Prakash Oil Industries and Ginning Factory (supra) is also misplaced as the facts of that case are different from the facts of assessee's case. As according to the facts of this case, the assessee itself had admitted that it has done job work which is not accounted for in the books of accounts. In this view of the situation, we found no substance in the submissions of the assessee and thus the order of ld. CIT (A) in this regard is upheld. This ground is dismissed." 12.3 Looking to the facts ....