2019 (6) TMI 1060 - HC - Income Tax

Estimated average sale of Poultry Droppings / Manure - rejecting the average stock of birds held during the years as determined by the assessing officer - AO calculated the average sales by adopting the quantity of 19.10 Kgs of estimated bird dropping per bird - AO referred to an expert opinion rendered by Professor D.Narahari, Senior Vice President of Indian Poultry Science Association. The assessee had adopted the value of 14 Kg per bird - HELD THAT - The assessee had adopted the value of 14 Kg per bird. The tribunal took note of the fact that the expert who rendered opinion had ultimately stated that the practical recoverability of manure may not exceed 10 Kgs per bird. Thus, the tribunal found fault with the manner in which the assessing officer completed the assessment, by referring that the assessing officer cannot consider the expert opinion in one part and reject the remaining part. The findings rendered by the tribunal in paragraph 9 of the impugned order is perfectly right and valid. Further more, we find that the CIT(A) had done an elaborate exercise and there is also specific mention made in the order by the CIT(A) that he has gathered information from the market as to, on what rate the poultry manure is sold. Thus, the factual position has been thoroughly gone into and re-examined by the tribunal for its correctness and this Court, sitting on appeal under Section 260A cannot re-assess the factual aspects , as if we are the second appellate authority over the tribunal. Therefore, the substantial question of law No.1 that arises for consideration, as framed by the Revenue, is rejected. Unaccounted money of cash accruals to offset against the purchase of property - assessee has not maintained books of account on the sale of poultry droppings / manure - CIT(A) allowing the unaccounted money of cash accruals to offset against the purchase of property. - HELD THAT - Factual finding was tested for correctness by the tribunal and it had independently gone into the factual position, analysed the records viz., the note book which was seized during its search and upheld the telescoping done by the CIT(A). CIT(A) as well as the tribunal had examined the factual position and rendered a finding, which cannot be upset in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, in the absence of any perversity established by the Revenue against the finding of the CIT (A) or that of the tribunal. No question of law, much less substantial question law as framed by the Revenue arises for our consideration. In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Upholding decision on estimated average sale of Poultry Droppings / Manure and rejecting average stock of birds.
2. Allowing unaccounted money of ?2,37,99,820 of cash accruals to offset against the purchase of property.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the tribunal's decision to uphold the CIT(A)'s ruling on the estimated average sale of Poultry Droppings / Manure and the rejection of the average stock of birds determined by the assessing officer. The assessing officer based the average sales on 19.10 Kgs of estimated bird droppings per bird, while the assessee used 14 Kg per bird. The tribunal noted that an expert opinion suggested a practical recoverability of manure not exceeding 10 Kgs per bird. Consequently, the tribunal criticized the assessing officer for selectively considering the expert opinion. The High Court concurred with the tribunal's findings, emphasizing that the CIT(A) conducted a thorough examination, including market research on the sale rate of poultry manure. The High Court clarified that it cannot reassess factual aspects under Section 260A of the IT Act, acting as a second appellate authority over the tribunal. Therefore, the first substantial question of law raised by the Revenue was rejected.

2. The second issue pertains to whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing the unaccounted cash accruals of ?2,37,99,820 to be offset against the purchase of property. The CIT(A) permitted this offset after detailed reasoning, which was subsequently upheld by the tribunal. Both the CIT(A) and the tribunal extensively reviewed the factual circumstances, including seized notebooks, and affirmed the decision. The High Court highlighted that in the absence of any established perversity by the Revenue against the findings of the CIT(A) or the tribunal, there is no basis for intervention in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act. Consequently, the High Court concluded that no question of law, let alone a substantial one, arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and connected miscellaneous petitions without costs.