Assessing Officer vs Indian Metal Works
2003 Latest Caselaw 183 Del

ORDER

R.K. Gupta, J.M.:

This is an appeal by department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who deleted the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 made by assessing officer on account of undisclosed income.

2. The brief facts of the case are that there was an information with the assessing officer that some material was brought from Jagadhary purchased from MMTC and the same was intercepted at the sales-tax check barrier Kundli and a penalty of Rs. 30,000 was levied. Statement of transporter was taken by the ADI and the same was passed on to the assessing officer who, while holding that the said material having a value of Rs. 1,20,000 and penalty to the extent of Rs. 30,000 levied by the Sales-tax authorities was an unexplained investment by the assessed, made addition of Rs. 1,50,000 on account of undisclosed income. assessed preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who after examining the issue in great details held that the material purchased from the MMTC was duly accounted for by the assessed in its purchase account. Necessary details were examined i.e., cash book, ledger, copy of the stock record, excise, etc. and found that the assessed has maintained regular books of accounts and the purchases made from the MMTC on 13-10-1989, transported to. Sonepat on 15-10-1989, were duly recorded. It was also found by Commissioner (Appeals) that all the books of the assessed were duly audited. Accordingly, it was ascertained at the end by Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods intercepted at the sales-tax barrier on 29-12-1989, were not belonging to the assessed. Accordingly, additions made by assessing officer were deleted. Now, the department is in appeal here before the Tribunal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that there was an information with the assessing officer that some material was brought from Jagadhary purchased from MMTC and the same was intercepted at the sales-tax check barrier Kundli and a penalty of Rs. 30,000 was levied. Statement of transporter was taken by the ADI and the same was passed on to the assessing officer who, while holding that the said material having a value of Rs. 1,20,000 and penalty to the extent of Rs. 30,000 levied by the Sales-tax authorities was an unexplained investment by the assessed, made addition of Rs. 1,50,000 on account of undisclosed income. assessed preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who after examining the issue in great details held that the material purchased from the MMTC was duly accounted for by the assessed in its purchase account. Necessary details were examined i.e., cash book, ledger, copy of the stock record, excise, etc. and found that the assessed has maintained regular books of accounts and the purchases made from the MMTC on 13-10-1989, transported to. Sonepat on 15-10-1989, were duly recorded. It was also found by Commissioner (Appeals) that all the books of the assessed were duly audited. Accordingly, it was ascertained at the end by Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods intercepted at the sales-tax barrier on 29-12-1989, were not belonging to the assessed. Accordingly, additions made by assessing officer were deleted. Now, the department is in appeal here before the Tribunal.

3. The learned Departmental Representative simply placed reliance on the order of assessing officer. On the other hand, the counsel of the assessed strongly placed reliance on the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The learned Departmental Representative simply placed reliance on the order of assessing officer. On the other hand, the counsel of the assessed strongly placed reliance on the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. After perusing the order of assessing officer and Commissioner (Appeals), we do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has ascertained that the material purchased by assessed from MMTC vide bill dated 30-10-1989, which was transported to Sonepat on 15-10-1989, from MMTC vide bill No. YNRSN143/89-90 by truck No. HYE-4645 of which freight of Rs. 55 was paid vide freight receipt No. 3345, dated 16-10-1989. It was also ascertained by Commissioner (Appeals) that octroi of Rs. 3.30 per ton was also paid and all these payments have been duly entered in the books of accounts of the assessed, It is also ascertained by Commissioner (Appeals) that department could not file any supporting evidence that the material intercepted by the ST authorities at the sales-tax barrier were belonging to the assessed. Even at the stage of Tribunal, the department could not file any detail which supports the contention of the assessing officer. Therefore, without bringing any cogent material on record, the addition on presumptoin basis that the material belongs to assessed, are not possible. Therefore, in view of all these facts and circumstances and in view of the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) which in our considered view are finding of fact, we confirm the order of Commissioner (Appeals). One more reason for confirming the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) is that the learned Departmental Representative could not controvert the finding of Commissioner (Appeals).

4. After perusing the order of assessing officer and Commissioner (Appeals), we do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has ascertained that the material purchased by assessed from MMTC vide bill dated 30-10-1989, which was transported to Sonepat on 15-10-1989, from MMTC vide bill No. YNRSN143/89-90 by truck No. HYE-4645 of which freight of Rs. 55 was paid vide freight receipt No. 3345, dated 16-10-1989. It was also ascertained by Commissioner (Appeals) that octroi of Rs. 3.30 per ton was also paid and all these payments have been duly entered in the books of accounts of the assessed, It is also ascertained by Commissioner (Appeals) that department could not file any supporting evidence that the material intercepted by the ST authorities at the sales-tax barrier were belonging to the assessed. Even at the stage of Tribunal, the department could not file any detail which supports the contention of the assessing officer. Therefore, without bringing any cogent material on record, the addition on presumptoin basis that the material belongs to assessed, are not possible. Therefore, in view of all these facts and circumstances and in view of the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) which in our considered view are finding of fact, we confirm the order of Commissioner (Appeals). One more reason for confirming the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) is that the learned Departmental Representative could not controvert the finding of Commissioner (Appeals).

5. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed.

5. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed.