2013 (11) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... chandrabaabu,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. R. Gangadharan For the Respondent : Mr. A. R. Jaya Pratap Government Advocate (Taxes) JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. Ravichandrabaabu,J.) The assessee is on appeal in respect of the assessment year 1990-91. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Joint Commissioner, made in his Suo Motu Revision against the order of the A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... variation noticed during inspection was subsequently accounted in the accounts of the assessee. As such, the first Appellate Authority found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to two times, was not warranted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the addition made in respect of actual suppression is sufficient and consequently held that the assessee was entitled to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t into account subsequent to the inspection of the variation in the stock, the addition made by the Assessing Officer, namely, twice the actual variation, is unwarranted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner made an addition of actual suppression, holding that the same would be adequate towards probable omission. 5. We find that the reasoning of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is just and pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X