A R UDYOG,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2011-12 dated 07.03.2025, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 03.12.2018.

The assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “Ground-1: That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in considering the assessment order as valid and good in law, in as much as the facts and circumstances of the case, when he confirmed the actions of the Ld. AO the Ld. A.O. in addition of Rs. 11,49,794/- on account of "unaccounted income" u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on doubt, suspicion and surmise 6.1 We have gone through the decisions relied upon; however, it is also mentioned in the written submission filed that the assessee is a small-scale business enterprise carrying out a limited volume of transactions during the relevant financial year and had engaged a part- time accountant for maintaining its books of account. Consequently, detailed and systematic records such as the stock register and stock statements are not readily available for verification. Hence, these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee as the assessee is not able to produce the required books of account in support of the claim that the purchases were made nor the other details are available. It is further submitted that due to an inadvertent error on the part of the assessee’s accountant, two separate ledger accounts were maintained for M/s. Durga Trading Corporation and M/s. Vasukinath Enterprise and out of these, only one ledger account of both