2008 (9) TMI 93 - HC - Income Tax

AO made addition on account that assessee who is engaged in manufacture of Gaur Gum Pulverized has transferred guar splits at rate much lower than the market rate - AO can from the material on record reject a particular claim in the return unless the decision of AO can be held to be erroneous therefore finding recorded by AO to the extent the same has been affirmed by the CIT (A) as well as by the ITAT unless shown to be perverse will be a finding of fact assessee s appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in disturbing the trading result without rejecting books of accounts under section 145.
2. Justification of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in confirming the trading addition by notionally enhancing sale price without evidence.
3. Justification of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without considering explanations and materials.
4. Appreciation of findings on facts and evidences on record by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
5. Perversity and quashing of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to disturb the trading result without rejecting the books of accounts under section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal affirmed the Assessing Officer's action, leading to the appellant questioning the justification of this decision. The Tribunal had noted that proper books of accounts were maintained, raising concerns about the validity of the decision.

2. Another issue raised was the Tribunal's decision to confirm the trading addition by notionally enhancing the sale price without concrete evidence. The appellant contested this action, highlighting the absence of proof of increased sale consideration passing to the assessee. The appellant also noted the lack of a provision similar to section 40A(2) and pointed out similar additions that had been deleted in the past.

3. The appellant further challenged the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's reversal of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order without considering explanations, materials, comparative cases, and other supporting evidence on record. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision was factually and legally flawed, emphasizing the importance of properly evaluating the merits of the case.

4. Additionally, the appellant questioned the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's failure to appreciate the findings on facts and evidences on record, especially in comparison to the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appellant sought clarification on the validity and reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision-making process.

5. Lastly, the appellant raised concerns about the perversity of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and requested it to be quashed. The appellant sought a review of the Tribunal's decision, highlighting potential inconsistencies or errors that could impact the overall outcome of the case. The High Court, after considering the arguments presented, dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law raised by the appellant warranted consideration based on the findings and decisions of the lower authorities.