2010 (12) TMI 790 - HC - Income Tax

Search and seizure - Addition - sale price of rice bran recorded in the books of account was not found to be genuine and actual sale price was found to be higher which rate was also adopted in another case mentioned therein - The entry and the books of account of the assessee being not reliable, assessment had to be made on estimation - Decided against the assessee for want of evidence

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in reversing the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition made by the Assessing Authority based on no evidence or material?
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in restoring the addition of Rs.1,49,557/- based on the understatement of sale proceeds of rice bran?

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessing officer had made additions to the declared income due to under-billed transactions and unreliable books of account. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) set aside the additions, but the Tribunal reinstated them. The dispute in this case pertained to the addition of Rs.1,49,557/-. The Tribunal found that the assessee had understated the sale proceeds of rice bran, which was admitted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) himself. The Tribunal referred to a similar case and upheld the addition based on the sale rate of Rs.330 per quintal. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in allowing relief and restored the Assessing Officer's order.

2. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the assessee, arguing that the sale consideration in the seized diary was not necessarily correct. However, the court disagreed, noting that the sale price of rice bran recorded in the books of account was deemed unreliable, and the actual sale price was found to be higher based on evidence from another case. The court emphasized that the issue involved the appreciation of evidence, and since the books of account were unreliable, the assessment had to be made on estimation. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding, in this case, was upheld as there was no perversity in its decision.

In conclusion, the court answered the questions raised against the assessee and dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision to restore the addition of Rs.1,49,557/- based on the understatement of sale proceeds of rice bran.