- (1.) The appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 9th September, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing an appeal preferred by the Revenue against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Revenue has come up challenging the said judgment and order of the learned Tribunal.
(2.) The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows: 2.1 The respondent-assessee claims to be a commission agent dealing in fishes. She also has an ice factory. During the assessment of her income tax, for the assessment year 2006-07, a survey was conducted. Some of the books of accounts of the assessee were seized. One of them was a register, identified as GTI-1, which contained the following columns: 2.2 From the aforesaid register it had appeared that the sum of Rs. 42,78,717/- was receivable by the assessee from the buyers of fish. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 4,74,681/- was detected to have been advanced to the sellers of fish. These amounts were not reflected in the books of account of the assessee. The defence of the assessee was confession and avoidance on the plea that the sum of Rs. 42,78,717/- was receivable on account of the sellers of fish and the sum of Rs. 4,74,681/- had been advanced by the buyers of fish. The aforesaid sum is also the balance outstanding at the end of the financial year 2005-06. 2.3 The total income of the assessee as per the return was Rs. 1,64,995/-. The Income-tax Officer assessed the income at a sum of Rs. 59,70,687/-. The additions made by him were as follows: 2.4 Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who on his turn, disallowed all the additions made by the Assessing Officer without disclosing any convincing reasons. 2.5 The Revenue preferred an appeal to the Income Tax Tribunal only as regards deletion of the sum of Rs. 4,74,681/- and the sum of Rs. 42,78,717/-. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal agreeing with the views expressed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Revenue has come up in appeal. 2.6 Notice was given to the assessee so that the appeal can be disposed of on merits. Pursuant to such notice, the assessee appeared and the matter was taken up for hearing.
(3.) The questions for consideration are: (a) Whether the decision to delete addition of a sum of Rs. 4,74,681/- is perverse? (b) Whether the decision to delete addition of a sum of Rs. 42,78,717/- is perverse?;