TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, to have been actually incurred by the assessee. Unless there is adequate evidence as regards expenditure, the amount of income earned by the assessee can never be assessed by any amount of certainty. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the revenue acted arbitrarily or the order passed by them is perverse. On the top of it, what we find is that the assessment which was made by the Assessing Officer was subsequently reduced by the CIT(A) and the same has been confirmed by the learned Tribunal. These are pure questions of fact. The ground of challenge is perversity. We have already indicated that the order passed by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) or the learned Tribunal and each of them is backed by evidence and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, added that the returns for the assessment year 2001-02 was not due on the date of search. On the date of search certain documents were seized. The Assessing Officer had made the assessment on the basis of the documents seized, but the books of account prepared by the assessee on the basis of those documents were rejected. There was also a survey at both the shops of the assessee and at such survey some documents were inventorized. The contention raised by Mr. Khaitan is that the books of account prepared by the assessee reflecting the contents of the documents seized during search and seizure should not have been rejected. His next submission is that the revenue has proceeded to assess the assessee on the basis of sales appearing fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by any amount of certainty. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the revenue acted arbitrarily or the order passed by them is perverse. On the top of it, what we find is that the assessment which was made by the Assessing Officer was subsequently reduced by the CIT(A) and the same has been confirmed by the learned Tribunal. These are pure questions of fact. The ground of challenge is perversity. We have already indicated that the order passed by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) or the learned Tribunal and each of them is backed by evidence and the ground of perversity is altogether unmeritorious. The question, quoted above, is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. In that view of the matter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
