SUBRATA MUKHERJEE,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-46(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

After hearing the rival contentions, I find that the assessee stated that he is a manufacturer of leather goods. He submitted audited books of account showing export turn over of Rs.9,72,54,257/- and total business turn over of Rs.22,14,92,337/-. A profit of Rs.12,08,955/- was declared and filed a return of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Later the assessed filed a declaration denying the transaction as well as profit stated in the books of account. The auditor has denied having audited the books as well as his signature on the audit report. The assessee offered Rs.36,28,815/- as turn over and offered 6% of this amount for tax. This was not supported by any evidence.

Both AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) recorded that the assessee has not produced any evidence in support of his contentions, despite repeated reminder. Under the circumstances the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A).

Before me the ld. Counsel for the assessee could not controvert the factual finding given by the ld. CIT(A). The contentions of the assessee could not be supported by the ld. AR. This is a case where the assessee states that whatever books of Accounts that he maintained, the tax Audit reports he has obtained are wrong and fraudulent. Such contentions cannot be countenanced.

Under the circumstances I dismiss this appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of the ld. CIT(A).

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.