2007 (10) TMI 372 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of Accounts- . The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business as wholesale dealer in cement. In respect of the assessment year 2002-03, the assessee filed its return admitting a total income of Rs.8,62,790. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on March 18, 2002, just 13 days prior to go for completion of accounts At the time of survey, it was found that the accounts were maintained in the computer and as against the various entries posted in the computer, primary evidence in the form of vouchers or receipts were not available. The assessing authority found that the gross profit as per the computer data on the date of survey was nowhere near the profit shown to the Department. Considering the same, the assessing authority went in for comparable cases, where the gross profit rate was admitted to be around at 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. and proceeded to estimate the gross profit of the assessee at 4 per cent. as against the gross profit disclosed by the assessee at 2.77 per cent. Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal confirm the order of assessing authority. Held that- Tribunal rightly confirmed the findings on fact. As the issue involved was one of fact, it could not be interfered with.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order without independent reasoning?
2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in confirming the addition to gross profit without considering the appellant's contentions?

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order, questioning the lack of independent reasoning in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to address the grounds raised in the appeal adequately. Citing a previous case, the appellant sought similar relief. However, the High Court found no justification to extend the decision's benefit to the present case.

2. The case involved a partnership firm engaged in the wholesale cement business. During the assessment year 2002-03, a survey revealed discrepancies in the firm's accounts, which were maintained on a computer without supporting vouchers or receipts. The Assessing Officer found irregularities and estimated the gross profit at 4% compared to the 2.77% declared by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, considering comparable cases and a .715% difference in gross profit. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, leading to the current appeal.

3. The High Court noted that the Assessing Officer highlighted the irregular maintenance of accounts and incomplete records during the survey. Due to discrepancies and lack of contemporary evidence, the gross profit declared by the assessee was not accepted. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered the comparative cases and the assessee's advantages, adding .715% to the gross profit. The Tribunal, after analyzing the facts, upheld the lower authorities' decisions. Given the factual nature of the issue, the High Court found no legal grounds to interfere and dismissed the appeal under section 260A.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the tax case appeal, emphasizing the proper consideration of facts by the lower authorities and the lack of legal questions warranting intervention.