2013 (11) TMI 1489 - HC - Income Tax

Yield of paddy - estimation of income - Held that - The AO pointed out two comparable cases who had shown yield of rice at more than 66% in the same area as that of assessee - In case of nine mills from Sunam cited by the assessee, the yield is 65% or more - In the case of assessee the yield of rice has been shown only at 64.75%. Having regard to the aforesaid cases as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel as also the cases relied upon by the AO, which are also from the area of the assessee i.e. Sunam - It is clear that the yield shown by the assessee is definitely on the lower side and that the Ld. Counsel has not placed any material before us which would justify the yield shown by the assessee - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding addition in trading account due to milling shortage, rejection of books of accounts by Assessing Officer, appeal against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirming additions, appeal against Tribunal's decision confirming suppressed yield value, and rejection of books of accounts.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment pertains to an appeal filed by M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding an addition in the trading account due to a milling shortage. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 7,09,085 in the trading account based on an overall shortage in milling compared to the total paddy milled. The revenue considered the shortage excessive, leading to the rejection of the books of accounts by the AO. The AO also observed discrepancies in the moisture content of purchased paddy and the pricing, leading to the conclusion that the moisture content was not more than 18%. The AO further calculated the loss on account of driage and other factors, determining that the overall normal shortage should not have exceeded 5% of the total paddy milled.

In the appeal process, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed the rejection of books of accounts and the addition of Rs. 1,77,000 as the value of suppressed yield in rice. However, the plea regarding rice bran, phuk, and husk was accepted, providing relief in the trading account. The appellant then appealed against the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 1,77,000, challenging the rejection of books of accounts and presenting additional grounds justifying the genuineness of the books. The Tribunal found no merit in the additional pleas raised by the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,77,000.

The High Court analyzed the case, noting that the assessee failed to furnish complete details of alleged comparable cases, while the AO cited two comparable cases forming the basis of the addition. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts, considering the yield of rice in the case to be lower than comparable cases cited by both the AO and the appellant. The Tribunal approved the adoption of a 65.5% yield of rice and sustained the addition of Rs. 1,77,000 for the suppressed yield. Ultimately, the High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the appeal was based on factual circumstances with no substantial legal issues involved. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the assessment, rejection of books of accounts, and the calculation of the suppressed yield value, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.