9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Application u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 seeking direction to Tribunal to state questions for opinion of the court regarding ad hoc addition towards trading results, ignoring comparable case, non-maintenance of stock register, and gross profit rate variation.
Issue 1 - Ad hoc addition towards trading results: The assessee questioned the Tribunal's confirmation of the ad hoc addition of Rs. 75,000 without determining the basis of computation of true income. The Tribunal justified the addition due to non-maintenance of proper accounts by the private limited company, leading to estimation of income based on available material and past assessment orders. The court held that the estimate was not a pure guess but based on relevant material, thus no legal question arose from the Tribunal's order. Issue 2 - Ignoring comparable case: The Tribunal was questioned for ignoring the comparable case of Chandra Engineering Industries and not following the Supreme Court judgment cited by the applicant. The Tribunal's decision was based on the inadequacy of pointing out the comparable case without substantial evidence, leading to the rejection of the assessee's argument based on the cited judgment. Issue 3 - Non-maintenance of stock register: The Tribunal's confirmation of the ad hoc addition towards trading results due to non-maintenance of stock register and auditor's report was challenged. The assessee argued that all purchases, sales, and expenses were vouched and verifiable except for two vouchers, indicating no suppression in turnover. However, the Tribunal upheld the addition based on the lack of proper documentation. Issue 4 - Gross profit rate variation: The Tribunal's decision to confirm the ad hoc addition towards trading results despite the variation in gross profit rate and increased turnover was questioned. The Tribunal's justification for the addition was based on the substantial increase in turnover and the lack of proper accounts maintained by the assessee, leading to the rejection of the application seeking direction to the Tribunal. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
