9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; and in the result, has deleted in toto the impugned addition towards country liquor business of the assessee, as made by the Assessing Officer ('the AO') in the assessment order dated 11.03.1996, and as partly retained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur ('the CIT(A)') in the order dated 28.01.1998 as passed in the assessee's appeal. The appeal has been admitted on the following questions of law:- "(1) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that best judgment assessment made by the Assessing Officer is not based on cogent and relevant criteria? (2) Whether Tribunal was justified in upholding the order passed by CIT (Appeals) when it held that Assessing Officer was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the AO to Rs.10,65,928/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28.01.1998, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee took cross-objections therein. By the impugned order dated 03.06.2005, the Tribunal has allowed the cross-objections taken by the assessee and has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue; and, in the result, has deleted the additions altogether while observing and holding as under :- "11. Having discussed the relevant legal position, we revert to the facts of this case, the business of the assessee has been totally controlled by the Department of Excise, Government of Rajasthan. Naturally there are no chances of suppression of sales/ purchases, rather the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have to be accepted and no additions can be made therein. The case of Malu Khan cannot be applied when assessee's past history is available and there is no difference at all in the facts in this year. The facts of both the years are on all fours. Otherwise, also the case of Malu Khan is not at all comparable one. 14. The CIT(A) has accepted the submission of the assessee to some extent but has retained the additions to a substantial amount, even after accepting the past history theory. No reasons have been given for the same. The sustained addition is baseless and arbitrary, which cannot be sustained in the given facts of this case. No evidence has been brought by the AO for sustenance of any addition for that ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited, a Government undertaking, and the same were fully vouched but, in the absence of a primary record like sale vouchers, the assessee had shown sales in the manner suitable to it; and, while holding that the books of account maintained by the assessee were not reliable, applied provisions of Section 145(2) of the Act and rejected the same. The AO then held that the profit of the country liquor business of the assessee had to be determined in comparison with other analogous assessee engaged in the same line of business because considering the stiff competition for acquiring monopoly rights, it could be reasonably presumed that the assessees were likely to have profit comparable with each other. The AO then com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m and in taking irrelevant material into consideration by relying upon the exemplar of a country liquor dealer of Allahabad district. This, according to him, vitiates the finding recorded by the Tribunal. 4. We find no merit in the aforementioned submission made by the learned counsel. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that what it in effect finds is that neither the exemplars pertaining to the country liquor dealer of Allahabad nor those which concerned other country liquor dealers of Lucknow, could, in the circumstances of the case, provide a proper basis for assessing the profits earned by the petitioner. Account to it, applicant's profits could properly be worked out in the light of its assessment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material difference in the facts pertaining to the relevant assessment year and the past history year. The CIT(A), even while accepting past history as the relevant basis for assessment, proceeded to retain a part of the addition to the tune of Rs.10,65,928/- without cogent and sufficient reason therefor. The Tribunal, therefore, while endorsing the basis adopted by the CIT(A), has found no reason to sustain any addition and hence, deleted the addition altogether. In the totality of circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be faulted in accepting the profit rate as declared by the assessee while not approving the rate as applied by the AO. The order as passed by the Tribunal does not appear suffering from any perversity or from the application o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
