DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL Vs. CIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) filed against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.10.1998 passed in ITA No. 1779(Del)/90 pertaining to assessment year 1986-87. The appellant before us has impugned two additions sustained by the Tribunal. The first one being: an addition in the sum of Rs 34,20,635/- to its trading results. The second being: an addition in the sum of Rs 1,54,477/- on account of excess production of finished stock, which according to the Department ought to have remained in stock on the last day of the accounting year.

(2.) THE brief facts which give rise to the present appeal are as follows:

(3.) THE seizure of document A-64 revealed to the department certain information evidently available with the supervisor of the appellant/ assessee with regard to packaging material, which included empties, such as, tins of the 50 gms and 10 gms as well. THE information led to an inquiry whereby, the assessing officer compared the information available in the seized document with that filed by the appellant/assessee with the department. Consequently, the assessing officer proceeded to assess the income on the basis that he best thought fit under the circumstances. 5.1 At this stage we may only note that Mr Aggarwal conceded before us that it was not his contention that the information which was contained in the document A-64 could not have been used by the assessing officer in computing and/or determining the income for the assessment year in question. Mr Aggarwal, however, contended that the assessing officer had not specifically returned a finding in terms of Section 145 of the Act rejecting the appellant/ assessees books of account. 5.2 In our view the authorities below including the assessing officer have proceeded on the basis that it was not possible to determine the income of the assessee based on accounts produced by him. A perusal of the orders of the authorities below clearly shows that this ground was not pressed before any of the authorities below in particular the Tribunal both at the stage of an appeal and at the stage of rectification sought under Section 254(2) of the Act; though in the grounds of appeal filed before CIT(A), an objection to that effect is present. THErefore, this submission of Mr Aggarwal cannot be entertained at this stage and hence, is rejected.