2011 (1) TMI 275 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - Income Tax

Head Note / Extract:
Additions - the appellant had failed to explain the discrepancy in respect of wheat recorded in the register of ADFC and the Market Committee and that in the heap register. There may be some discrepancy in the weight when the same is recorded in the heap register, but the discrepancy in the present case is so huge that it cannot be explained away by merely relying upon an extract from the Punjab Market Committee - six farmers never unloaded their agril. produce at the shop of the appellant, it is noted that this plea was taken only after the enhancement notice was issued and on the last date of hearing . Such a plea was never taken before Ld. ITO - Six Affidavits of such farmers are not entertained because these constitute additional evidence and has been created at belated stage to explain away the discrepancy. These six affidavits are self serving statements because it is not understood as to whom the goods of these farmers, which had allegedly been not unloaded, were entered by the Market Committee and the DFSO in their respective statutory registers.Further, if any such thing had happened, the same would have been noted by Ld. ITO because it is noteworthy that Ld. ITO gave credit for 900 bags, which were returned to the farmers. Accordingly, I hold that the additions made by the Ld. ITO is justified and further the income deserves to be enhanced by an amount of Rs.111020/-. This ground accordingly fails and further the income is enhanced by Rs.111020.”The petitions are dismissed.