2006 (1) TMI 50 - HC - Income Tax

Non-maintenance of stock register additions in view of difference inclosing stock as well as low gross profit rate held that AO can apply his best discretion for determining the actual turnover & profit earned out of the said business Assessee s appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appeal involves any substantial question of law under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Act is justified due to the non-maintenance of a stock register by the assessee?
3. Whether the decisions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal regarding the addition are correct and do not involve any substantial question of law?

Issue 1: Substantial Question of Law
The appeal was filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The court emphasized that for admitting an appeal under this section, it is essential to establish the involvement of a substantial question of law. After hearing the appellant's counsel and examining the case records, the court concluded that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law as required by section 260A. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's order.

Issue 2: Addition under Section 69
The dispute centered around the assessment year 1998-99, where the assessee, engaged in the business of supplying machinery and spare parts, did not maintain a stock register. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,58,540 under section 69 of the Act due to discrepancies in the closing stock quantification and the application of a low G.P. rate. Despite the assessee's explanations, the addition was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, citing the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies.

Issue 3: Decisions of Authorities
The court noted that when both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have already considered and decided on a specific addition or deletion in the assessment, it does not typically involve a substantial question of law. The court clarified that its appellate jurisdiction, as defined under section 260A, does not permit a fresh inquiry into the factual findings already examined by the lower authorities unless there are specific grounds such as absurd reasoning or violation of the law. In this case, the court found no error in the decisions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which thoroughly assessed the explanations provided by the assessee and upheld the addition under section 69.

In conclusion, the court held that the appeal lacked merit and did not raise any substantial question of law, leading to its dismissal without costs.