2014 (12) TMI 307 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Tribunal s order Non-speaking order passed by Tribunal Held that - The Tribunal was of the view that the AO is legally and factually correct in rejecting the books of accounts u/s. 145 - the burden is on the assessee to prove that timber imported through a specific bill and quantity is either shown as sold or lying in the closing stock - before the AO assessee has not furnished month wise sales and purchases in quantity - revenue has also found various defect after taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, reasons recorded by the AO for making the addition by rejecting the books of accounts u/s. 145, CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition and the addition was correctly made by the AO the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A) s order without assigning any cogent reasons thus, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for AY 1990-91.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's judgment, questioning whether the conclusion was contrary to facts and evidence, and if the finding was perverse. The return of income declared a loss, and the AO passed the assessment order after considering audited accounts and tax audit reports.
2. The AO noted discrepancies in gross profit, leading to an addition of Rs. 8,41,296. Penalty proceedings were initiated for inaccurate income particulars. The CIT(A) defended the appellant's position, arguing against the AO's approach and justifying the GP percentage discrepancies.
3. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, upholding the AO's addition, citing the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145. The burden was on the appellant to prove the timber's status, and the Tribunal found defects in the submissions, supporting the AO's decision.
4. The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order, remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The Court did not delve into the merits but highlighted the need for the Tribunal to reevaluate the case thoroughly.

This detailed analysis covers the appellant's challenge, AO's assessment, CIT(A)'s defense, Tribunal's decision, and the High Court's intervention, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal judgment.