2013 (10) TMI 654 - HC - Income Tax

Decrease in gross profit rate - rejection of books of accounts Valuation of Stock Held that - Valuation of stock of rice had also not been made on any proper method of valuation of stock - Item-wise and quality wise closing stock of rice and paddy had also not been maintained. In short, information supplied by the Assessee was not only deficient in material particulars but the Assessee had also shown its helplessness to provide better particulars demanded by the Income Tax authorities. It is thus clear that record of the Assessee lacked probity and transparency so far as the material information is concerned. Adhoc addition in the income of the Assessee was made because of low Gross Profits declared by the Assessee - the questions framed by the Assessee are only questions of facts and details - these are not questions of law much-less substantial questions of law - An appeal under Section 260-A of the Act, is entertainable only on substantial questions of law - Since no question of law arises for an answer, the appeal is dismissed Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of low gross profits leading to an adhoc addition in income.
2. Alleged substantial questions of law raised by the Assessee.
3. Dispute regarding the genuineness of the Assessee's accounts and the quality of information provided.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a partnership concern operating a Rice Sheller, faced a significant decrease in gross profits compared to the previous assessment year. The Assessing Officer made an adhoc addition of Rs. 4,00,000 to the income due to the low gross profits declared by the Assessee. The appeal against this decision was dismissed by the first and second appellate authorities, leading to the current appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The Assessee raised two substantial questions of law in the appeal. The first question pertained to the sustainability and perversity of the Tribunal's order, alleging an erroneous assumption and application of jurisdiction without invoking the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. The second question challenged the reasonableness of the Tribunal's conclusions, claiming they were dehors to the material on record and in-apposite to the assessment and CIT order.

3. The Assessee contended that the decrease in gross profits was due to specific reasons, such as a decrease in average realization per Dollar and an increase in production costs compared to sale prices. However, the Revenue argued that the Assessee's accounts were not genuine, lacking essential details about the quality of paddy, rice, and byproducts. The Revenue claimed that the books of accounts were contrived, leading to the addition in income being justified.

4. The material presented by the Assessee included detailed tabulated information spanning over 12 years. However, when asked to provide quality-wise details of items, the Assessee failed to do so, citing inability to maintain such specific information. The stock register maintained by the Assessee lacked quality-wise details of products, and the valuation of stock was not done using proper methods, further raising doubts about the transparency and accuracy of the information provided.

5. The Court concluded that the questions raised by the Assessee were primarily questions of facts and details rather than substantial questions of law. As per the provisions of Section 260-A of the Act, an appeal can only be entertained on substantial questions of law. Since no such questions were identified, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision to make the adhoc addition to the Assessee's income based on the low gross profits declared.