2015 (1) TMI 1022 - HC - Income Tax

GP addition - unaccounted production in absence of clear cut justification from assessee for impact of change in factors resulting in increased fuel consumption both in value and volume terms - Tribunal deleted addition - Held that - Tribunal being ultimate fact finding authority has found that in absence of any material to show that the transaction entered into books of account was bogus or that any entries in the books of account were not supported by vouchers the books of account maintained by the Assessee could not have been discarded and in case of doubt it was required for the A.O. to verify genuineness of expenditure. The Tribunal has upset the fact finding of the lower authority. In our view the question sought to be canvassed can further be considered only if ultimate finding of fact by the Tribunal is upset after re-appreciation of evidence on record. It is hardly required to be stated that the finding of fact would be beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny in the present appeal where the judicial scrutiny would be limited to substantial question of law. Whether books of account could be discarded or not considering the facts and circumstances essentially it is a question of fact and not the question of law. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against deletion of addition on account of GP on unaccounted production.
2. Appeal against ignoring decline in gross profit ratio and increased breakage percentage.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition made on account of GP on unaccounted production. The Tribunal found that the books of account maintained by the Assessee were regular, audited, and supported by a duly maintained stock register. The Tribunal emphasized that the rejection of book results should only occur if the books are incomplete, unreliable, or if the method of accounting does not accurately reflect the profit. The Tribunal highlighted that disproportionate increase in expenses does not justify the rejection of book results unless there is evidence of bogus or non-verifiable expenses. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer failed to provide material to show any such discrepancies, and therefore, wholesale rejection of book results was not warranted.

2. The second issue raised in the appeal was regarding the decline in gross profit ratio and increased breakage percentage reported by the Assessee. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities rejected the book results due to the Assessee's inability to explain these changes adequately. However, the Tribunal held that such reasons only required the Assessing Officer to verify the books with caution and make inquiries, not to reject the book results entirely. The Tribunal emphasized that without evidence of bogus or non-verifiable expenses, the rejection of book results was not justified. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's failure to provide material to support the rejection of book results led to the Tribunal overturning the lower authority's decision.

3. The High Court, in its judgment, reiterated that the Tribunal is the ultimate fact-finding authority and found no substantial question of law to consider in the appeal. The Court emphasized that the finding of fact by the Tribunal should not be re-evaluated unless there is a clear error. The Court stated that the decision to discard books of account is a question of fact, not law. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's order and dismissed the appeal as meritless.