2010 (10) TMI 802 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained investment - unrecorded sales - figure of sale shown by the assessee was in excess of figure of material recorded in the books of account. Thus, income declared was more than the figure of material recorded in record. Even if there may be deficiencies in the books of account, which may give rise to suspicion for making addition, inference has to be justified on same basis. When the sale figure was higher than the figure of raw material recorded in the books of account or inferred, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal could certainly hold the addition to be unjustified. The findings recorded are based on appreciation of evidence and are not shown to be perverse, no substantial question of law arises for consideration, appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal by revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act against ITAT order for assessment year 2005-06.
- Deletion of addition for unexplained investment in raw palm oil, unrecorded sales, and difference in closing stock.
- Justification of deduction under section 80-IB disallowed by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act against the ITAT order for the assessment year 2005-06. The substantial questions of law raised included the deletion of additions for unexplained investment in raw palm oil and unrecorded sales, as well as the difference in closing stock. The Assessing Officer had made additions to the declared income of the assessee based on deficiencies found in raw material details, work-in-progress, and finished products. However, the Tribunal set aside the additions, stating that they could only be justified on a proper basis, and the inference drawn was not supported by evidence. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer's inference was not justified as the appellant's explanations were reasonable and supported by records maintained under Excise Laws. The Tribunal affirmed these findings.

2. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal concurred that even if there were deficiencies in the books of account, the addition had to be justified on a proper basis. The sale figure shown by the assessee was higher than the figure of material recorded in the books of account. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified as the income declared was more than the material recorded, and the findings were based on evidence and not shown to be perverse. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of justifying additions to declared income based on proper evidence and reasoning. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal emphasized the need for a valid basis for making additions, especially when the declared income exceeded the recorded material figures. The judgment ultimately dismissed the appeal by the revenue, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer.