Mahaveer Tiles Factory, Bikaner vs Department Of Income Tax on 18 June, 2013
4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the learned
CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessing Officer has drawn the presumption
without there being any material on record to substantiate his theory of
unaccounted sales and the entire addition was an offshoot of hypothesis
and imagination. The reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras
High Court in the case of K.M. Adam vs. CIT 56 ITR 605 (Mad.). It was
contended that during the course of survey on 21/03/07 memorandum
books reflecting the outside books transaction were seized and the assessee
filed return taking into account the income as contained in the seized
books. It was stated that the entries in cash book were complete up to the
20/03/07, whereas the posting in the ledger account was complete up to
05/03/2007. It was explained that the figures of purchases as taken in the
trading account prepared as on 21/03/07 were at Rs.85,33,296/- whereas
the said purchases were in fact at Rs.96,28,357/- after updating the posting
in ledger account which were upto 05/03/2007. It was contended that
since the trading account was prepared for the period upto 21/03/07, there
was need to add the purchases effected between the period 06/03/07 to
21/03/2007 and the aggregate of such purchases worked out to
Rs.38,84,387-. Thus, the total purchases upto 21/03/07 was reported to
Rs.96,28,357/- as against Rs.85,33,296/- considered by the Assessing
Officer and the amount of Rs.10,95,061/- was regarded as difference in the
purchase. It was contended that the figures as contained in seized material
[5]
were sacrosanct, as they had got immense evidentiary value and were
considered clinching evidence. It was stated that the difference of
Rs.10,95,061/- as worked out was the result of casting error and the same
deserved to be rectified. The reliance was placed on the following case
laws:-