1. Heard Shri K.N. Puntambekar, learned counsel for the appellant, on the question of admission, as both the appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, in two cross appeals preferred by the assessee and the Revenue. Both were heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. Both the appeals are under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires that the appeal in the High Court can be admitted for hearing only when the court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, then the question of its admission does not arise. However, the facts giving rise to filing of the present appeals are mentioned hereinbelow :
3. In both the appeals, the matter pertains to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. A survey was conducted on the shop of the appellant-assessee on November 9, 1995. Later on, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant. Upon an enquiry, it was found that certain cash credits and bank deposits were made in the books of account of the assessee, which he had failed to explain. It was also found that some purchases were not recorded in the books of account and similarly some payments made to suppliers were not recorded in the books of account.
4. The appellant offered an explanation that he had come from the agriculturist background, was new to business, had employed a part-time accountant to maintain the books of account mainly for the sales tax purposes. It was further offered by way of explanation that as the accountant was not properly trained, thus he has not maintained the books of account correctly and certain entries were made just to the appellant.
5. In this background, the contention of the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was that reliance should not be placed on his books of account and his sales GP should be estimated and assessed accordingly and no other addition should be made in this regard. To substantiate this, a further affidavit of the accountant was also filed to show that he had made certain silly mistakes and was not properly trained to maintain the books of account.
6. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not find force in the argument that was advanced by the appellant as it was noticed that the assessee had been in the business for the last 17 years and the books of account were found during the survey. The same could not have been denied by the assessee that they do not belong to him. In this background, various additions were made to the income of the appellant-assessee for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96.
7. Against such a finding recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and against some finding, which was recorded against the Revenue, both preferred appeals. The appeal of the assessee has been partly allowed and only part of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has been set aside, by which the amount of Rs. 3,184 on account of excess credit was made, remaining appeal was dismissed. However, in a nut-shell, with regard to all other grounds, the appeal has been dismissed.
8. It was also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that under the Explanation appended to Sub-section (6) of Section 133A of the Act, the survey was not conducted by the authority concerned. Even though this ground was not taken specifically in the original appeal preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal, however, it was contended that this ground was taken subsequently by way of amendment. Be that as it may. The impugned order of the Tribunal neither shows nor reflects that any such ground was pressed into service while raising the appeals.
9. When such a finding of fact is recorded by all the authorities concerned, we find that no case for interference is made out. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the authorities concerned, does not reflect or show any substantial question of law, calling upon us to decide the same. The appeals being devoid of any merit or substance are hereby dismissed. A copy of the order be retained in the connected appeal.