2008 (8) TMI 164 - HC - Income Tax

AO on noticing the deficiencies in books of account, determined the sales of assessee by applying the gross profit rate of 25% as against 7% shown by the Assessee whether action of AO is justified held that, once the authorities had come to the conclusion that books of account were not properly maintained and suffered from deficiencies, the Assessing Officer was justified in computing income on reasonable basis in appropriate manner

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by Assessee and Revenue Department.
2. Dismissal of appeals I.T.A. 2000/M/1996 and I.T.A. 2550/M/1996 related to Assessment Year 1992-1993.
3. Dispute regarding rejection of book result and addition of undisclosed gross profit.
4. Interpretation of statutory language and jurisdiction of High Court.
5. Determination of income based on Assessing Officer's findings on Books of Account.
6. Relevance of qualitative tally in assessing profits.
7. Computation of income in absence of proper accounting method.

Analysis:

1. The Assessee and Revenue Department filed appeals against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order for the Assessment Year 1992-1993. The Assessee contested the rejection of book result and addition of undisclosed gross profit, citing errors in the Tribunal's decision under section 145 of the Income Tax Act. Reference was made to the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.P. Jain regarding the Tribunal's misinterpretation of statutory language.

2. The Tribunal noted the Assessing Officer's rejection of the Assessee's trading results and the subsequent addition of Rs. 45,00,000 based on a higher gross profit rate. It acknowledged the deficiencies in the Books of Account, emphasizing the Assessing Officer's authority to compute income reasonably when books are not properly maintained.

3. Citing Dhondiram Dalichand v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the court highlighted the importance of qualitative tally in assessing profits, stating that the absence of such details allows the department to proceed with profit assessment. The Assessing Officer's conclusion regarding stock register and finished goods details was deemed crucial for verifying the Assessee's stock correctness.

4. The judgment referenced Commissioner of Income-tax v. McMillan and Co., emphasizing the Income Tax Officer's authority to determine income when the true profits cannot be ascertained based on the Assessee's method. It also cited United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income-tax, underscoring the Income Tax Officer's discretion in computing income when the method employed does not properly deduce income.

5. The Assessing Officer's findings of deficiencies in the Books of Account and revenue leakages led to the conclusion that the method of accounting was improper. The court held that in such circumstances, no substantial question of law arose for consideration, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.