(Made by F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.) The Revenue has come forward with this revision and the substantial question of law sought to be raised is as under:
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in merely affirming the conclusions the first appellate authority without independent appreciation of the merits as final fact finding authority in relation to the deletion of actual addition of Rs.5,54,125/- and equal addition of Rs.5,54,125/-?"
2. The short facts are that the Assessing Authority while assessing the first sales turnover took into account two items viz., (i) deficit stock of yarn noticed at the time of inspection on 13.12.1995 to the value of Rs.54,885/- and (ii) sales suppression of yarn estimated for want of purchase bills in a sum of Rs.5,54,125/-. The Assessing Authority made an equal addition on the ground of probable omission and the taxable turnover was arrived at Rs.15,00,214/-.
3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner while considering the grounds raised on behalf of the assessee, noted that the deficit stock variation of 219.540 kgs. of polyester yarn was admitted by the respondent in a statement at the time of inspection. However, it noticed that the respondent-assessee being a manufacturer of grey cloth, the sales turnover accounts revealed the value of cloth in a sum of Rs.2,24,97,012/-. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also found as a matter of fact that the yarn account and the converted cloth account tallied for the entire period of the financial year 1995-96. In the above said circumstances, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner thought it fit to delete the equal addition alone while confirming the addition of actual deficit stock in a sum of Rs.54,885/- in the turnover. Similarly, in respect of the sales suppression of yarn, it was estimated at a sum of Rs.5,54,125/-. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on a detailed examination of the records, found out that the entire purchase of yarn was entered in the stock register, the purchase register as well as the conversion account. However, in respect of a quantity of yarn to the extent of 600.500 kgs. received for the purpose of conversion from M/s.CCM Fabrics, Coimbatore, which is stated to be the sister concern of the assessee, though the receipt of goods were entered in the stock register, the corresponding entries, which were also disclosed to the Inspecting Officers on the date of inspection viz., 13.12.1995, the relevant invoices and delivery challans were produced before the Assessing Authority as well as before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. Having regard to the fact that necessary entries were found in the stock register on the date of inspection viz., 13.12.1995, the Appellant Assistant Commissioner held that the subsequent production of the relevant copies of invoices and delivery challans disclosed that there was no suppression of any purchase of yarn, other than what was noted in the stock register. Having regard to such a conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of this item also, viz., sales suppression of yarn estimated for yarn of purchase bills to the value of Rs.5,54,125/-, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner thought it fit to delete the equal addition while confirming the inclusion of the said value in the sales turnover assessed by the Assessing Officer. In that context, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also found that the sales turnover of grey cloth as per the accounts was in a sum of Rs.2,24,97,012/-, which tallied with the yarn account and the conversion of cloth account for the financial year 1995-96. Having regard to such a conclusion reached by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which were based on relevant acceptable material evidence, the deletion of equal additional alone by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot be found fault with. Equally, the confirmation of the same by the Tribunal in the absence of any other factor brought to its notice to dislodge the above findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot also be interfered with.
We, therefore, do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law to entertain this revision. The revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
ATR To The Deputy Commissioner (CT) Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore