Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (8) TMI 265 - HC - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Unaccounted sale of cattle feed.
2. Unaccounted sale of Kapas Shanker (cotton).
3. Unaccounted purchase of Shankar Kapasiya (cotton seeds).
4. Unaccounted purchase of Kalyan Kapas.
5. Unaccounted sale of cotton bales.
6. Unaccounted sale of Kala.
7. Unexplained stock difference.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Unaccounted sale of cattle feed:
The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions totaling ?5,93,853/- for unaccounted sales of cattle feed, including ?21,150/- for bogus sales, ?1,23,021/- for sales recorded in bill books but not in regular books, and ?4,49,682/- for sales entered in sale note books but not billed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found that the sales were already accounted for in the books produced during assessment and were included in the gross profit addition. The sales of ?4,49,682/- pertained to a separate concern, M/s. Raghuvir Cotton Company, which filed separate returns. The Tribunal concurred with CIT(A)'s findings. The High Court upheld this, noting no documentary evidence to contradict the concurrent findings, and ruled no question of law arose.

2. Unaccounted sale of Kapas Shanker (cotton):
The AO added ?1,23,987/- for unaccounted sales of Kapas Shanker, rejecting the purchase account's quantity record. The CIT(A) observed that all purchases were accounted for and supported by bills, and the AO failed to counter the assessee's contentions in the remand report. The Tribunal agreed with CIT(A), and the High Court found no perversity in the findings, ruling no question of law arose.

3. Unaccounted purchase of Shankar Kapasiya (cotton seeds):
The AO added ?71,89,691/- for unaccounted purchases of Shankar Kapasiya, claiming only a fraction was recorded in the books. The CIT(A) found the purchases recorded in X-13 included transactions of M/s Raghuvir Cotton Company, which filed independent returns accepted by the AO. The Tribunal concurred, and the High Court noted no contrary material was presented, ruling no question of law arose.

4. Unaccounted purchase of Kalyan Kapas:
The AO added ?1,65,231/- for unaccounted purchase of Kalyan Kapas, based on a discrepancy between the survey figure and the quantity in X-13. The CIT(A) found the quantity was recorded in the books and entered in impounded records ignored by the AO. The Tribunal agreed, and the High Court found no perversity in the findings, ruling no question of law arose.

5. Unaccounted sale of cotton bales:
The AO added ?27,71,015/- for unaccounted sale of cotton bales, treating the difference between expected and physical stock as unaccounted sales. The CIT(A) found the sales were from accounted stock and directed the AO to add only the profit element. The Tribunal concurred, and the High Court found no legal infirmity, ruling no question of law arose.

6. Unaccounted sale of Kala:
The AO added ?8,10,665/- for unaccounted sale of Kala, attributing purchases recorded in X-13 to the assessee firm. The CIT(A) found the purchases pertained to M/s Raghuvir Cotton Company, which filed returns reflecting these transactions. The Tribunal agreed, and the High Court found no perversity in the findings, ruling no question of law arose.

7. Unexplained stock difference:
The AO added ?11,16,568/- for unexplained stock difference, treating it as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) found the AO had already added gross profit for various items and could not do so again. The Tribunal concurred, and the High Court upheld the findings, ruling no question of law arose.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's order, based on concurrent findings of fact and appreciation of evidence, did not give rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates