2017 (5) TMI 189 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - non maintenance of stock register - Held that - The grievance of the assessee that mere non maintenance of stock register would not warrant rejection of the books of account putting a reliance upon the decision of this Court in R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Poona 1969 (3) TMI 17 - BOMBAY High Court but in the above case, there is a finding of fact that in view of the nature of industry, it was not practicable or possible to keep account of the stock. In the case before us, it has never been the case before the authorities under the Act or even before us that it was not possible to maintain production register. Therefore, the above submission on behalf of the Assessee has no merits in the context of the present facts. Subsequent Assessment Year 2008-09, the Tribunal on an identical set of circumstances accepted the books of accounts as maintained - Held that - In view of the distinction in facts as recorded by the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2008-09, it cannot be said that its order for the Assessment Year 200809 will apply to Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Tribunal has taken to a different view in the Assessment Year 2008-09 on set of facts, completely different from that existing in the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Thus inapplicable. In our view, the concurrent finding of facts rendered by the authorities under the Act that the appellant-assessee had failed to produce the Registers indicating Production, Issuance and Consumption. Thus the view to reject books of account for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 is a possible view on facts. Therefore it cannot be said to be perverse and/or arbitrary. - Decided against assessee Addition to income - gross profit @ 27% for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 22% for Assessment Year 2007-08 estimated - Held that - In this case, the estimate has been arrived at on the basis of the material on record and also various statements made by the employees and directors during search and survey proceedings. In fact, the Apex Court in Brij Bhushan Lal Praduman Kumar etc. v/s. CIT 1978 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court itself clearly lays down that when best judgment Assessment is done, to some extent there would be element of guess work and so far as estimate is relatable to some evidence or material, it cannot be said that the estimate, is perverse and/or wild. Thus, there is no merit in the above submission on behalf of the Appellant-assessee. Whether the statement made by the employees/ director during the course of search and survey cannot be the basis for arriving at undisclosed income of the Assessee? - Held that - CBDT Circular dated 10th March, 2003 would not be applicable to the present facts. The Circular was issued when it was brought to the notice of the CBDT that the assessees were forced to confess to undisclosed income during the course of a search. This forced confession formed the basis attributing undisclosed income to the assessee in absence of any credible evidence in support of the confesion. In the present facts, the statement which are made by the employees were indubitably voluntarily made and not forced. The subsequent retraction was not found acceptable by the Authorities. These are questions of appreciation of facts and unless the nonacceptance of retraction is shown to be perverse no interference in the present facts is called for. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08.
2. Approval of gross profit addition for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08.

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Rejection of Books of Accounts under Section 145(3):
The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing and sale of paneer and trading in milk, faced a search and survey action leading to the rejection of its books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The rejection was based on the lack of evidence supporting the quantities of milk sales recorded in the books. Despite being called upon to provide documentary evidence, the Appellant failed to substantiate its claims. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld the rejection, emphasizing the absence of maintained registers containing production, issuance, and consumption details. The Appellant's argument that non-maintenance of a stock register should not lead to rejection was dismissed, as the nature of the industry did not justify such a claim. The Tribunal's different view in a subsequent assessment year, where books were accepted, was deemed inapplicable due to distinct factual circumstances. The concurrent finding of the authorities on the absence of necessary registers supported the rejection of books for the relevant assessment years.

Issue 2 - Approval of Gross Profit Addition:
Following the rejection of books, the Assessing Officer estimated undisclosed income based on discrepancies in milk sales and production for making paneer and other products. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal affirmed these estimates, citing statements made during search proceedings and lack of submitted details. The Appellant's contention that the best judgment assessment was arbitrary was refuted, referencing the Supreme Court's stance that such assessments must be based on available material. The reliance on employee and director statements was justified, as they were voluntarily made and not retracted convincingly. The argument regarding the CBDT circular on forced confessions was dismissed, as the present statements were voluntary. The Tribunal's decision not to consider the absence of incriminating documents during the search was deemed appropriate, as it was not raised as a substantial question of law. The authorities' view on estimating undisclosed income was upheld as a possible one, not warranting interference.

In conclusion, both appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs.