AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—The tribunal on basis of materials brought on record has come to a finding that the books of account maintained by the assessee relating to assessment proceedings for the year 1998- 99(UP) were not reliable, in view of the diary, which was stated to have been subsequently recovered at the time of survey conducted on 23rd September, 2000. The first appellate authority, as well as the Tribunal although have granted partial relief, but levy of tax to the remaining extent, has been sustained on the basis of materials produced.
The assessee asserts that the diary which is said to have been found from the premises belonged to the brother of the accountant. An affidavit was filed stating that diary was a rough note book prepared by the brother of the accountant who was in the process of learning accountancy. The assessee submits that this affidavit has not been controverted, and therefore, books of account on such basis, ought not to have been discarded and best judgement procedure could not have been followed.
The submission is opposed by learned Standing counsel who contends that the affidavit appears to have prepared for the purposes of making out same justification and lacks credibility. It is stated that the tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the entries in the diary were not worth placing reliance and the explanation submitted was not liable to be accepted.
From the materials placed on record, I find substance in the findings returned in the order of the Tribunal, as well as contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the alleged affidavit was a desperate attempt on part of the assessee to some how or the other discredit entries made in the diary. The opinion expressed by the Tribunal upon perusal of materials adduced, is essentially a question of appreciation of evidence and the findings returned on facts is not liable to be reappraised in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Question of law formulated for consideration in this revision is answered by holding that the survey dated 23.9.2000 was relevant, inasmuch as, diary seized did refer to the transactions for the year 1998-1999, and that the tribunal has committed no error in refusing to place reliance upon the affidavit of Dinesh Kumar Agarwal.
The revision accordingly is consigned to records.