Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Manohar Sweets

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Manohar Sweets 11/07/2014 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. This is a revenue's appeal under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 calling in question feasibility of an order dated16.3.2007 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Indore Bench in the matter of deleting certain amount, which wasassessed towards tax by the Assessing Officer. The Assessee herein carries out business of manufacturing andsale of sweets and certain other items. Its a partnership firm and it issaid that the survey was conducted in the premises of theestablishment under the provisions of law and in this survey soconducted, one of the partners, Shri Murli Harwani made a statementaccepting that 15% of the sale everyday is not reflected in theaccount book prepared. The proceedings for survey was conductedon 23.1.2001 and for the assessment year in question i.e. for the year1996-97 onwards even though the account books were submitted,bases on the statement of the partner, the account books weredisbelieved and an addition of Rs.23,40,771/- was made by theAssessing Officer. However, the Tribunal found that the sole statement of thepartner has been believed, it was recorded on 23.1.2001 and thesuppression of 15% indicated by him for the last 2-3 years wasconsidered to be correct for rejecting the account books, which wereproduced. The Tribunal found that for the same establishment and it'ssister concerned, for the assessment year 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99& 1999-2000 in various proceedings held, the assessments weremade and all these assessments made based on the account bookswhich were produced and no discrepancy in the same was found. nd Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Manohar Sweets The learned Tribunal held that merely, based on the statementmade by one of the partners, in the absence of any material beingavailable to say that the account books were not maintained properly,addition of the amount was not proper and in Paragraph-5, aftergoing into all these questions, the discretion has been exercised bythe learned Tribunal to say that the account books seem to begenuine and accepted the same mainly on the ground that for theassessment year 1996-97, right upto 1999-2000 i.e. till a year beforethe survey took place, the account books were accepted and theassessment finalized. Keeping in view the aforesaid reasons indicated by theTribunal and finding the same to be reasonable, we see no substantialquestion of law involved warranting consideration in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Rajendra Menon) (Alok Verma) Judge Judge