2009 (8) TMI 4 - HC - Income Tax

Conflicting Findings of the ITAT Non reliability of the accounts and statement of the proprietor - assessee submits that the view taken by the Tribunal is inconsistent with its order for assessment year 1992-93 and that addition was not called for as the account of M/s Vijay Bottle Stores in whose favour credit entry was made in the accounts book of the assessee was not properly maintained held that the matter has been duly considered concurrently by the three authorities and the addition has been made and upheld. The findings of fact so recorded cannot be held to be perverse. There was no question of inconsistency with the finding for the year 1992-93 as it has been held that the amount related to assessment year in question

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Addition of Rs.3,25,000 on account of difference in the balance of M/s Vijay Bottle Store.
3. Alleged inconsistency in the Tribunal's decision for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93.
4. Failure to find the year of payment of the impugned amount.

Analysis:
1. The assessee filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi "A" Bench for the assessment year 1991-92. The primary issue raised was the alleged inconsistency between the Tribunal's decision for the current assessment year and the subsequent assessment year 1992-93. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's decision was unsupported and perverse due to conflicting findings. The Tribunal had confirmed an addition of Rs.3,25,000 on account of a difference in the balance of M/s Vijay Bottle Store, which the assessee argued was unjustified based on the unreliability of the said party's accounts and proprietor's statement.

2. The Assessing Officer had received information regarding a credit entry made by the assessee in favor of another party, which was deemed non-genuine. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the outstanding liability shown by the assessee to M/s Vijay Bottle Store and the amount receivable as per the supplier's records. The supplier confirmed receiving a significant sum during the relevant financial year, which the assessee did not account for. Despite the lack of concrete evidence from both parties, the Tribunal upheld the addition based on the failure to prove the source of payment and the absence of produced books of accounts by either party.

3. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 1992-93, where the reliability of M/s Vijay Bottle Store's accounts was questioned, should have influenced the current decision. However, the Court noted that the matter had been thoroughly considered by all authorities, and the addition was deemed justified based on the evidence presented. The Court dismissed the argument of inconsistency, emphasizing that the findings for the current assessment year were based on the specific circumstances and evidence relevant to that year.

4. The appellant also raised the issue of the Tribunal failing to determine the year of payment of the impugned amount, which was considered during the proceedings. However, the Court found that the lack of specific determination regarding the year of payment did not invalidate the overall decision to uphold the addition based on the undisclosed sources of income and failure to provide adequate proof of payment. Consequently, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.

← Previous Next →