2007 (3) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in I. T. A. No. 6331/Del/1996 for the assessment year 1993-94, I. T. A. No. 5423/Del/1997 for the assessment year 1994-95, I. T. A. No. 5293/Del/2004 for the assessment year 1993-94 and I. T. A. No. 5058/Del/1998 for the assessment year 1995-96. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of tin containers. A search and seizure operation was carried out on March 9/10, 1995 in the business premises of the assessee. Certain documents were seized and amongst others there were daily production reports prepared on a printed pro forma titled "daily production report in the fabrication department". As per the assessee, these rep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in production and sale of tin containers. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer observing, inter alia, that such addition was mainly based on alleged difference in the production of containers, while there was no such difference. 5. The Tribunal agreed with the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the Revenue that addition was made on the basis of daily production report seized during the course of search containing details of containers actually produced by the assessee in the specified period of three months, the details of which could not be reconciled with the produc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The entries therein were definitely co-relatable to the entries in the stock register, enabling an easy stock tally, if one was so required. However, the Assessing Officer did not deem it fit to carry out the exercise of tallying the stock as per these entries in the two types of books. He merely went by the alleged difference, which was not at all there. Very many details with regard to opening stock of raw material, purchases, issue for fabrication, balance, the various types of containers manufactured, along with the respective weights thereof, were duly furnished by the assessee. This copious evidence, was wrongly ignored by the Assessing Officer, which was duly set right by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (....