SHRI RISHI SAGAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee is in appeal under Sec. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') against the order 23.5.2013, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') for the assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No. 10/Chd/2013, raising the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that no doubt at the time of assessment, the assessee could not furnish the requisite details and the audited accounts on account of fault of the Chartered Accountant, however, at the time of hearing of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana [for short, 'CIT (A)'], balance sheet was furnished. It was from the material produced at that stage that it was clarified that certain amounts, which were shown in the credit of the creditors accounts had, in fact, been cleared. The transactions were through bank accounts. Additions were made stating that to be unexplained income. Once the amounts had been paid through bank transactions and there was no dispute about that, additional evidence produced by the assessee before the CIT (A) should have been considered. The authorities having failed to appreciate the same in violation of the provisions of Sec. 215(4) of the Act, this being a substantial question of law, the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that on account of large scale discrepancies found in the books of accounts produced by the assessee at the time of assessment and on his failure to answer the queries raised, his books of accounts were rejected and the assessment was framed under Sec. 143 (3) of the Act. The discrepancies in the entries in creditors' accounts have not been disputed by the assessee. Even at the appellate stage, though the assessee filed fresh provisional balance sheet trying to explain the entries, which were found to be manipulated with earlier balance sheet filed, but even that was not an audited balance sheet. The assessee is trying to claim isolated relief explaining one transaction. In the absence of audited balance sheet and explanation for other discrepancies found in the books of accounts, which are large in number, such a claim by the assessee cannot be accepted. There is no error in the order passed by the authorities below. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.