2013 (8) TMI 706 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - question of law - Held that - When questions of law framed by the assessee are mapped on the canvass of facts and circumstances of this case, it turns out to be clearly a case which has no legal implications to be resolved and rather is entirely dependent upon fact situations which have adequately been dealt with by the statutory authorities within the sweep and domain of their jurisdiction. When the questions proposed by the appellant have neither legal contours nor have any legal aspect to be discussed, debated or decided or legal complications to be resolved, these questions framed in this appeal, cannot be termed as questions of law much less substantial questions of law. When Assessing Officer had rejected books of accounts of the assessee under Section 145(3) of the Act and this finding of fact has been affirmed consecutively by the two statutory appellate authorities which had then proceeded to deal with the entries in such books of accounts under different heads and had rendered their verdicts which have no potential for exposition of any legal theory or concept, the appeal is not maintainable under Section 260A of the Act - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of Rs.3,39,954/- and Rs.1,97,364/- to the income of the assessee.
3. Application of the precedent set by CIT vs. Ram Sanehi Gian Chand regarding the advantage of surrendered amount.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Books of Accounts under Section 145(3):
The primary issue concerns whether the rejection of the books of accounts by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 145(3) was justified. The appellant, a commission agent in the trading of foodgrains, had undergone a survey under Section 133-A, during which an additional income of Rs.6.00 lacs was declared. The AO found that the appellant had not maintained regular books of accounts and had prepared them post-survey, indicating manipulation to set off the additional income declared. The AO identified multiple defects and discrepancies in the books, leading to the conclusion that the books were unreliable for deducing actual gross profits. This finding was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which noted that the books were not written at the time of the survey and were likely prepared later as an afterthought.

2. Addition of Rs.3,39,954/- and Rs.1,97,364/-:
The second issue involves the addition of specific amounts to the assessee's income. The AO added Rs.6,03,708/- on account of the low selling rate of rice and Rs.1,97,364/- for underreporting the sale price of rice. The AO found that the appellant had shown lower selling rates than the purchase rates, which was not satisfactorily explained. Additionally, Rs.12,94,775/- was added under Section 69 for transactions recorded in incriminating documents found during the survey, and Rs.2,68,504/- for transactions not reflected in the books. The AO also added Rs.5.30 lacs under Section 68 for unexplained cash deposits and Rs.10,860/- under Section 40A(3) for cash purchases exceeding Rs.20,000/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed some of these additions and remitted others for recalculation. The Tribunal upheld these findings, except for a minor relief of Rs.10,860/-.

3. Application of CIT vs. Ram Sanehi Gian Chand Precedent:
The third issue concerns whether the precedent set by CIT vs. Ram Sanehi Gian Chand regarding the advantage of surrendered amounts was applicable. The appellant argued that the cash deposits post-survey should be considered covered by the surrendered income. However, the AO and appellate authorities found that the appellant could not satisfactorily explain the source of these deposits, and the books of accounts did not reflect these transactions accurately. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both found that the appellant's explanation was not tenable, and the cash introduced in the books post-survey was held to be from undisclosed sources.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the questions raised by the appellant did not involve substantial questions of law but were rather factual determinations made by the statutory authorities. The consistent findings against the genuineness of the books of accounts by the AO, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal were upheld. The appeal was dismissed as it did not meet the criteria for maintainability under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, since no substantial question of law arose for consideration.