2019 (6) TMI 247 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - estimation of income - rejection of books of accounts - HELD THAT - Tribunal found that when the income assessed by the Assessing Officer was far more than the income returned by the assessee, all the investments made by the assessee stood explained. In such an event, the question of estimation of income adopted by the Assessing Officer, being one of the recognized methods of determination of income, could not be found fault as rightly observed by the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any perversity in the finding of the Tribunal, so as to answer the first question of law in favour of the Revenue. The second question of law is also only on facts. Therefore, we find no substantial questions of law raising for determination in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse?
2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

Analysis:
1. The appellant, the Revenue, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, questioning the Tribunal's order. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the respondent's premises, a contractor in civil works, leading to an assessment for the year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer determined the taxable income at a significantly higher amount than initially declared by the assessee. The Commissioner, under Section 263, set aside the assessment orders for further examination. The Tribunal, in a batch of appeals, concluded that revision under Section 263 was not warranted. The High Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's decision, as the income assessed was substantially higher than the declared income, justifying the Assessing Officer's method of income determination based on gross contract receipts.

2. The second issue pertained to the correctness of the Tribunal's decision in setting aside the Commissioner's order under Section 263. The Tribunal's finding was based on the significant disparity between the income returned by the assessee and the income assessed by the Assessing Officer. The High Court held that as the matter was factual, with no substantial legal questions raised, the appeal was dismissed. The judgment affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the recognized method of income determination used by the Assessing Officer in light of the substantial difference in the declared and assessed income. The dismissal of the appeal also extended to any related pending petitions, with no order as to costs.