PRADIP KUMAR SARAVGI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee (the appellant herein) has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), and is directed against the order dated 17.12.2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, at Patna, in ITA No. 2/ Patna/2002, whereby the assessee's appeal in terms of Section 246A of the Act has been rejected, and the orders of the learned Assessing Officer and the appellate authority have been upheld. This case is concluded by concurrent findings of fact and relates to assessment year 1998-99.

(2.) THE assessee is engaged in the business of textiles products and is engaged in retail business at Dehri-On-Sone, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. It submitted its returns for the assessment year 1998-99, and decision was taken for detailed scrutiny of the same. THErefore, notice in terms of Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee. THE learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, being the Assessing Officer, recorded three transactions of purchase relevant in the present context. He found that the three payments made to Aditi Synthetics, Bhilwara (Rajasthan), by three different demand drafts were really not paid for the purchases made by the assessee from Aditi Synthetics. THE learned Assessing Officer, therefore, concluded the same to be income escaping assessment and has, therefore, added it to the total income of the assessee totalling Rs. 2,10,101/-. THE assessment order was passed in terms of Section 143(2) of the Act. 2.1. THE second transaction under consideration was purchase made from one M/s Woolen House. THE accounts submitted by the assessee had shown a balance sum of Rs. 54,993/- against Woolen House, whereas the account sent by M/s Woolen House had shown Rs. 42,990/-. THE learned Assessing Officer, therefore, concluded that the assessee has shown Rs. 12,003/- as excess credit standing in the name of M/s Woolen House and, therefore, treated the differential amount as unexplained and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 2.2. THE third transaction under consideration was purchase of textiles materials from M/s G.K. Synthetics and M/s S.K. Bross. THE learned Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee had understated the purchase from these two parties to the extent of Rs. 11,835/-, and thereby payments made to them remained out of books. THErefore, the same amount i.e. Rs. 11,835/-, added to the total income of the assessee.

(3.) THE learned Assistant Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order. He submits that the issues are concluded by consistent findings of facts of the three authorities and, therefore, it is not open to this Court to reopen the issues of facts. He relies on the following judgments: (i) (2005) 2 SCC 324 (M. Janardhana Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax). (ii) (2007)291 ITR 278(SC) (Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. P. Mohanakala). (iii) (2008) 300 ITR 19(P&H) (Shiv Rice and General Mills vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax).