J.S. ANANTH vs. ACIT,

This appeal is filed by the assessee, against the order of the CIT (A), Mysuru, for the assessment year 2003-04. Although the assessee ITA.347/Bang/2013 Page - 2 has raised as many as five grounds in its appeal, arguments were made only in respect of ground no.2, which is as under :

It is the case of the assessee before us that the assessee was carrying on the business in the name of Sudarshan Silks and Sarees. A search u/s.132 was conducted on 11.10.2007 and notice u/s.153A was issued to the assessee calling upon the assessee to file the return. Sudarshan Silks had taken over the business of Sudarshan Silks & Sarees with effect from 01.02.2004, as a going concern and therefore the return was filed by the erstwhile partner, namely the assessee before us.

During the course of search, the note books inventorised as A3/JSA & V/04, dt.30.11.2007 were seized from the residential premises of the partner. The book has a title ‘change of bills’. The AO has examined the various entries of change of bills with the bills and has tabulated the same in para 4 of the assessment order which is reproduced below :

Before the CIT (A), assessee affirmed the submissions made before the AO. The CIT (A) after going through the reply also confirmed the addition made by the AO. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A), assessee is in appeal before us.

The Ld. AR has vehemently submitted that once the evidence relied upon by the Revenue has not been proved in records in accordance with law, the same cannot form the basis for making addition against the assessee. It was submitted that the hand-writing in the note-books were not of any of the family members of the assessee and therefore the same cannot be relied upon.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the case of the Revenue by relying upon the order of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. In our view, it is beyond the pale of controversy that the note books inventorised as A3/JSA & V/04 were seized from the premises of the assessee. It is also not challenged by the assessee that these seized articles were duly inventorised and a seizure memo was prepared by the investigating team having signature of the witnesses, in whose presence these articles were found. In the reply filed before the lower authorities, it was only disputed that the hand-writing in the note- books is not of any family members of assessee .

In our view, the presumption of law operates against the assessee as it is for the assessee to establish and prove that the documents seized / note books seized did not belong to the assessee and the entries therein were not the changed entries of high-value sale of the assessee. The assessee was merely denying the signatures in the note-books, but it is for the assessee to prove how the note-books were found during the search from the premises of the assessee from his possession. When the note-books found from the premises of the assessee, duly reflects suppression of sales by changing the high-value entries with low-value entries and assessee failed to rebut this presumption therefore presumption lies against the assessee , therefore order of AO is required to be upheld . The assessee has therefore failed to prove the case beyond the shadow of doubt. Accordingly we find no ground for interference in the order passed by the lower authorities.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.