JUDGMENT
1. Heard Sri V.K. Upadhya for the assessee and Sri Shekhar Srivastava for the Revenue.
2. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. By an order dated February 22, 1994, this court directed learned counsel for the Revenue to produce the entire record in original before this court for which time was granted. Again the same order was repeated on March 24, 1994. However, no record was produced but having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perusing the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal we were of the opinion that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.
4. This fact is not disputed that a search was made of the assessee on September 28, 1982, and October 6, 1982, and it was found that the assessee purchased goods from outstation and chungi receipts were issued by Nagar Palika in various names. Though the assessee deals in vegetable ghee, maida and sugar but certain goods were not entered in the stock register for which a detailed enquiry was made and the same fact was mentioned in the orders passed by the authorities concerned.
5. The claim of the assessee was also taken into consideration that the chungi receipts were false and the S.D.M. was on inimical terms with him but on the same he could not substantiate the plea advanced by him and, ultimately the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reached the conclusion that the receipt issued by an employee in the normal course of business, was correct as the assessee himself accepted the receipt issued in the name of. Sriniwas Hiralal and Sons.
6. He also admitted that the purchases had been made in the names' of other persons as well. On that basis, the Income-tax Officer worked out the total purchases and treated the amount of Rs. 1,02,230 as unexplained and worked out 8 per cent. gross profit rate on the sales and further addition of Rs. 42,240 and thus working out the total addition of Rs. 1,44,500. Thus, from the order itself there was enough material against the assessee and the finding reached by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse.
7. This being so even in the absence of the original record the reference, indeed, can be decided on the basis of the materials placed on record.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal.
9. The application is, therefore, rejected.