TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the assessed income was to the tune of Rs. 3,21,980 and the assessee was under a mistaken belief that the assessee deposited Tribunal fee at the rate of 0.50 per cent of the assessed income and when the assessee received a notice dt. 21st May, 2003, from the registry pointing out that the Tribunal fee deposited by the assessee was less by Rs. 1,585, the assessee immediately made the payment of the same on 26th May, 2003, after receipt of the notice. However, on going through the facts, the assessee again noticed that the appeal fee was still less by Rs. 20 and so it deposited the same and receipt challan was also sent to the registry. Thus, in this condonation application, the assessee contended that short payment made by the assessee was only on account of mistaken belief and without any mala fide intention, and so the delay in payment of the appeal fee by the assessee may be condoned. 2.2 Before us, learned authorized representative for the assessee reiterated the submissions which were contained in the condonation application of the assessee and submitted that since the appeal filed by the assessee was within time, it became barred by period of limitation on account of pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee as the same were returned unserved by the postal authorities. 2.5 From the condonation application filed by the assessee, it appears that the assessee received the last notice dt. 21st May, 2003, from the registry for the short deposit of Tribunal fee, the assessee immediately made the payment of the same on 26th May, 2003, and made good the short Tribunal fee deposited along with the appeal. From the facts it also appears that in fact the appeal filed by the assessee was simply a defective being on account of short deposit of the Tribunal fee which was a curable defect and the same has been done by the assessee immediately when it received the defective memo from the registry. Otherwise also, I do not find any reason for not depositing the requisite fee had the assessee not been under a mistaken belief that it was required to pay the Tribunal fee at the rate of 0.50 per cent of the assessed income. 2.6 Even the Hon'ble apex Court in its decision has also clearly held that the Court has to exercise its discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause", the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the sales of rice bran to M/s Partap Bhangu Solvex (P) Ltd., Pasiana, to the extent of Rs. 2,90,133 which was not declared in the books of accounts. The addition of Rs. 2,90,133 on account of unaccounted sales of rice bran has, therefore, been rightly made by the AO and calls for no interference. The appellant's plea on this ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed." 3.2 Before me, the main emphasis laid by the learned authorized representative for the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) is on the legal issue. According to the learned authorized representative for the assessee, the entries in the books of account of M/s Partap Bhangu Solvex (P) Ltd., a third party, are not conclusive proof of the happenings as held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills. vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P H), the ratio of which is reproduced below: "The copy of entries from the accounts of another firm supplied to the ITO by the Sales-tax Department was not legal and admissible evidence on which the ITO could act for imposing extra burden of income-tax on the assessee when the original accounts were missing and could not be verified and whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it purchased or received the goods in question or made payment for them. No material was put to it. Then Revenue authorities further failed to give evidence or G.R. Nos., truck Nos., sales-tax receipt Nos., etc., etc., to the assessee to prima facie prove that the purchases were made by the assessee and, therefore, addition of unexplained investment was justified. Enquiries might have been conducted in the case of M/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. The result of enquiry and the evidence which was used against the assessee was required to be put and confronted to the assessee. This was not done and the principles of natural justice were violated in this case." Learned authorized representative for this assessee, thus, submitted that in view of the above, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, the books of third party cannot be relied upon for making the impugned addition. 3.3 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue except placing reliance on the reasoning given in the orders of the tax authorities below, was neither able to place before me any case law which is against the case law cited by the learned authorized representative for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
