D.K. Seth, J. - (1.)This reference has no merit and ought not to have been made. It is settled principle that the closing balance of the accounting year shall be the opening balance of the next year. On the facts available, the decisions of the Income-tax Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal are justified and legal and call for no interference.
(2.)On a survey under Section 133A on January 12, 1988, in the premises of the firm at Saktigarh, a duplicate set of ledger for the accounting year ending with 31st Chaitra 1393 B. S. corresponding to April 14, 1987, being the relevant assessment year 1987-88 was found. A profit and loss account and a balance-sheet drawn up on the basis of the duplicate ledger were also found. In the said account, the capital balance on the first day of the accounting year ended on April 14, 1987, was higher than the closing balance in the capital account as on April 14, 1986, by an amount of Rs. 2,00,024. This was sought to be explained by the assessee, a partnership firm, to be an amount received upon sale of agricultural produce of the partners kept in the premises having been mixed up. The assessee failed to produce the duplicate ledger book for the earlier years on the ground that those were lost. The assessee could not prove sale of agricultural produce as claimed.
(3.)The other defence was that a revised return filed by one of the partners of the assessee was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. But this return was filed in March, 1989. Whereas the assessment of the assessee was completed on March 28, 1989.
;