2017 (1) TMI 1375 - HC - Income Tax

Substantial question of law - Assessment done u/s 153A - addition made on account of unaccounted purchases - Held that - The learned counsel for the appellants had re- worded the substantial questions of law as framed in the appeal memoranda and as framed by this court at the stage of final hearing as on June 14, 2016 as above. It is evident from a reading of section 260A of the Income-tax Act that the appeal would lie to this court from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal only if there is a substantial question of law that arises for consideration. In Vijay Kumar Talwar s case (2010 (12) TMI 2 - Supreme Court of India ), the Supreme Court has held that it is mandatory for the High Court to formulate the substantial question of law on which the appeal would be considered. But that the expression a substantial question of law is not defined in the Income-tax Act. However, it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. The principle that if a finding of fact is not challenged as being perverse, the High Court is bound to accept such finding. Therefore, as no such substantial question of law has been framed and the questions pertain to findings of fact, which cannot be said to be perverse as it is evident that the books of account of the respondent had been rejected by the assessing authority, in which case the same books of account could not be relied upon in an addition on account of trade creditors and also for arriving at the closing stock. There is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration and the findings of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse, as the reasons assigned by the Tribunal are certainly acceptable and do not warrant interference.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessment should have been conducted under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 instead of section 143.
2. Justification of the addition made on account of 'unaccounted purchases' under section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Justification of the deletion of addition on account of 'unaccounted sales/suppressed sales' by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessment under Section 153A vs. Section 143:
The primary contention was whether the assessment should have been conducted under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following a search under section 132, instead of under section 143. The Tribunal held that the assessment was vitiated as it should have been completed under section 153A. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal failed to note that under section 153A(1)(b), the Assessing Officer must finalize the assessment for each assessment year falling within six assessment years under section 153A. Furthermore, the Revenue contended that any irregularity should be ignored under section 292B if the proceedings were in substance and effect according to the intent and purpose of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, emphasizing that the issue was of jurisdiction and not a mere technicality.

2. Addition on Account of 'Unaccounted Purchases' under Section 69B:
The Tribunal had reversed the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding unexplained income on account of purchases under section 69B. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in not upholding these additions. However, the Tribunal's scrutiny of the entire factual material on record led to the conclusion that the additions were not justified. The High Court noted that the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, had made a clear finding of fact, and no additional material was presented to demonstrate that these findings were perverse.

3. Deletion of Addition on Account of 'Unaccounted Sales/Suppressed Sales':
The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on account of 'unaccounted sales/suppressed sales.' The Revenue contended that the Tribunal should not have deleted this addition, especially when the closing stock amount was not disbelieved by the Commissioner. However, the High Court emphasized that the Tribunal's findings were based on a thorough examination of the evidence and were not perverse. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, noting that the books of account had been rejected by the assessing authority, and thus could not be relied upon for making additions on account of trade creditors or for arriving at the closing stock.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Tribunal's findings were based on a detailed examination of the evidence and were not perverse. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The High Court reiterated the principle that findings of fact by the Tribunal should not be interfered with unless they are shown to be perverse, which was not the case here.

← Previous Next →