2015 (6) TMI 137 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - bifurcation of income - the entire income from receipt against non-supply to AH Department as the income of the assessee, whereas the income from admitted supply to AH Department was to be treated as 10 per cent of the supply made - Held that - As the figures of supplies are concerned, the same are derived from the audited accounts and the figures of the CBI by the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Authorities and the same are not in dispute. Once it is accepted that the assessee had earlier made supplies to private parties, the reasons adopted by the CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal appear to be unassailable. No substantial question of law - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment year 1996-97.
2. Determination of income from supplies to various parties, including the Animal Husbandry Department (AHD) of the Government of Bihar.
3. Bifurcation of income from supplies to private parties and the AHD.
4. Validity of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
5. Challenge to the decision based on failure to provide names of parties and verification of supplies.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1996-97, upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order. The appellant, a supplier of medicines and chemicals, had filed a return of income showing total income of &8377; 3,26,565. The Assessing Officer treated a significant portion of the total sales figure as income of the assessee due to lack of verification of transactions with the AHD and private parties.

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) bifurcated the income from supplies to private parties and the AHD. The total income from supplies to the AHD was determined at &8377; 2,62,10,979. The Commissioner concluded that income from non-supply to the AHD should be treated as the assessee's income. Additionally, 10% of the income from supplies to the AHD was considered as the assessee's income.

3. Regarding income from supplies to private parties, the Commissioner inferred that the appellant had fraudulently earned income from the AHD, but reasoned that private parties would not voluntarily suffer losses. Therefore, a reasonable estimate of 10% of the supplies to private parties was deemed as the assessee's income for the assessment year.

4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order as reasonable and consistent with previous years. The Tribunal found the figures of supplies derived from audited accounts and previous assessments, supporting the bifurcation of income as determined by the Commissioner.

5. The Department challenged the decision, arguing that the failure to provide names of parties and verify supplies justified treating the entire receipts as the assessee's income. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the figures of supplies were not in dispute and were based on audited accounts. The Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal accordingly.