2013 (12) TMI 202 - HC - Income Tax

Estimation of profits - Held that - The CIT(A) has directed the assessee to produce the quantitative stock and value-wise details of major items traded which constituted more than 20% of the turnover - The CIT(A) forwarded the details submitted by the assessee and rejoinder from the assessee to the Assessing Officer for filing remand report - Sales Tax assessment order was sent to the Assessing Officer for his comments too - Following ITO vs. Vijay Kumar Mesar 2009 (8) TMI 675 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT 231 CTR 165 - Confession made by the assessee during survey proceedings is not conclusive and it is open to the assessee to establish by filing cogent evidence that the same was not true and correct - The Tribunal after confirming the fact finding done by CIT(A) deleted the addition - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against ITAT judgment for AY 2007-08.
- Rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) and estimation of profit.
- Addition of surrendered amount during survey.
- CIT(A) directing production of stock details and deletion of addition.
- Tribunal upholding CIT(A) decision based on concurrent findings of fact.
- Dismissal of appeal by the High Court.

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court was filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2007-08. The case involved the rejection of books of account by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 145(3) of the Act and the subsequent estimation of profit from trading activity at 5% instead of the 2.11% declared by the assessee. Additionally, an amount surrendered by the assessee during a survey was also added. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had deleted this addition, leading to the Department filing the present appeal.

During the proceedings, the CIT(A) directed the assessee to provide detailed stock information, which was then forwarded to the Assessing Officer for further investigation. After receiving the remand report and considering the facts, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the principle that findings of fact by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal are not perverse and do not warrant interference. The High Court noted that the dispute primarily revolved around questions of fact, and since the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority, there was no substantial question of law arising from the impugned order.

The High Court, in its judgment, highlighted that the Tribunal's decision was supported by various legal precedents establishing its role as the final fact-finding authority. Consequently, the High Court sustained the Tribunal's order and dismissed the Department's appeal at the admission stage. The judgment emphasized the importance of not interfering with concurrent findings of fact unless there are substantial legal issues involved, which was not the case in this appeal.