- (1.) This appeal came up for hearing on 17.12.2007 on which day record was send for, then the matter came up for on 24.3.2008 on which date the record was reported to have been received but it was not found to be complete, and therefore, parties were directed to take necessary steps. Orally it was directed that both the parties shall make efforts to make available the complete record. This is how the matter came up yesterday, and instead of being listed for hearing it was listed for orders. In such circumstances, it was ordered to be listed today, and comes up today.
(2.) The appeal is by the Revenue against the order of the learned Tribunal dated 13.1.2004, which has been admitted on 3.8.2004 by framing following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal that the Assessing Officer has accepted the sale and purchases as recorded in his books of accounts has erred because the Assessing Officer has not accepted the books of accounts produced by the assessee to be correct but has rejected the same under Section 145(1) for the purpose of computing the taxable income of the assessee arising from his business carried in the name and style of M/s. Roop Milan Saree Center (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid premise, the Tribunal was right in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer by computing income on the basis of unexplained loose papers found in possession of the assessee at the time of survey operation under Section 133-A (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the above additions made on account of unexplained cash credits merely on the basis of confirmation filed by the assessee from the said creditors when they were not produced for verification when called upon by the Assessing Officer to produce those creditors for examination
(3.) Out of the three questions, so far question No. 3 is concerned, the parties are ad-idem that this question does not arise because on this aspect the learned C.I.T. has remanded the matter, against which no appeal was filed, therefore, this was not the question before the learned I.T.A.T. So far as the other two questions are concerned, the learned Assessing Officer has found, consequent upon purported deep scrutiny of the lose papers and note book, found unrecorded purchases, which have not been reflected in the goods purchase/purchase of sarees account, and details have been given, but then more important aspect is, that the learned Assessing Officer has found, that the transactions are written in coded language, which is evident from many pages of the diary itself, where it is written in coded figures, ignoring thereby last two digits. It was found that the assessee was asked to explain the details about these entries, but the assessee has failed to give any explanation, and accordingly the learned Officer has decoded, and arrived at the figure. In appeal the learned Commissioner found that the Assessing Officer has treated the entries to be coded by ignoring the last two digits, or last three digits, without any basis. Then, the learned Tribunal has also affirmed this finding.;