TMI Blog1971 (9) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the fact that some suppression was detected in the year 1961-62 would in law justify an inference that the assessee must have suppressed sales in other assessment years in question for determining the quantum of turnover for each of those years? (3) Whether there was any material for rejecting the account books of the assessee for the assessment years other than 1961-62?" The assessee is a dealer in silver ornaments at Agra. The assessee's shop was surveyed on 9th May, 1961, at about 7.15 p.m. and it was found that till then no entries regarding sales or purchases had been made in the account books. A sum of Rs. 5,660 was found in the till while the account books disclosed a balance of Rs. 1,834 and odd. There was thus an excess of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the result of a survey carried out during one year is not relevant for other years. It is not the date of the survey which is material, but what is material is the nature of the evidence or the material discovered during the survey. If the material so discovered relates to suppression for a particular assessment year in which the survey is made, then the survey report is not material for other years, but if the material discovered relates to suppression for different years, the survey becomes relevant for those years. So far as the veracity of the accounts is concerned, if the accounts for the remaining other years are otherwise found to be defective and are rejected, the survey of one year becomes relevant while fixing the turnover. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice. In the assessment year in which he found that the turnover has been estimated at more than four times of the stock, he has reduced the same and where he found that the turnover was less than four times of the stock, he has enhanced it. The figures are not exactly four times, but they are approximately so and the Judge (Revisions) has indeed erred on the side of leniency. Having thus recorded our conclusions, we now turn to the questions: Question No. (1) is answered by saying that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the survey report dated 9th May, 1961, was not relevant for the years other than 1961-62. So far as question No. (2) is concerned, we answer it by saying that the suppression detected in the year 1961-62 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
