9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court is bound to accept such finding. Therefore, as no such substantial question of law has been framed and the questions pertain to findings of fact, which cannot be said to be perverse as it is evident that the books of account of the respondent had been rejected by the assessing authority, in which case the same books of account could not be relied upon in an addition on account of trade creditors and also for arriving at the closing stock. There is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration and the findings of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse, as the reasons assigned by the Tribunal are certainly acceptable and do not warrant interference. - I. T. A. Nos. 5029 with 5030 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2016 - Anand Byrareddy And Raghvendra S. Chauhan, JJ. For the Appellants : Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate For the Respondent : Ashok Kulkarni and K. R. Prasad, Advocates JUDGMENT Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. These appeals are disposed of by this common judgment in view of the questions arising for consideration being similar. 2. The facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm carrying the business as wholesale cloth mercha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The following substantial questions of law have been framed by Shri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, the learned counsel for the Revenue as on June 14, 2016 in variance with the substantial questions of law that were framed in the memorandum of appeal, and as framed by this court at the time of admission of these appeals as follows : 1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessment was required to be done under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and not under section 143 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in not upholding the addition made on account of 'unaccounted purchases', by ignoring the provisions of section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on account of 'unaccounted sales/suppressed sales', when the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not disbelieved the amount of closing stock arrived at by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ? 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the assessment having be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue therein, and therefore while construing a Central legislation, like the Income-tax Act, which has an All- India application, there ought to be uniformity in the interpretation of the provisions, by the several benches of the Tribunal. Therefore the interpretation of the provision as canvassed and acted upon by the Department in one jurisdiction should not be departed from to the extent reasonably possible in other jurisdictions governed by the same law. 8. The further contention on behalf of the Revenue that in the light of section 292B of the Income-tax Act any irregularity in that regard by the authorities should be ignored as a mere technical defect is not tenable, as it is a question of jurisdiction and not a mere technicality. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in any event the question is purely academic as the Tribunal has decided the appeal in favour of the respondent on the merits and hence the question does not really arise for consideration. 9. In so far as the second and third questions of law are concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that pursuant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rutiny of the amounts incurred on the purchases by the respondent. In any event, the Revenue would not be in a position to rely on the rejected books of account for making the additions on account of trade creditors and also for the purpose of arriving at a closing stock. This is the view taken by at least four High Courts in the following reported judgments : (1) Indwell Constructions v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (AP) ; (2) CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar [1998] 229 ITR 229 (All) ; (3) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. [2008] 302 ITR 246 (P H) ; and (4) CIT v. Amman Steel and Allied Industries [2015] 377 ITR 568 (Mad). 12. In the light of the above contentions and on a perusal of the impugned orders, we notice that the learned counsel for the appellants had re- worded the substantial questions of law as framed in the appeal memoranda and as framed by this court at the stage of final hearing as on June 14, 2016 as above. It is evident from a reading of section 260A of the Income-tax Act that the appeal would lie to this court from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal only if there is a substantial question of law that arises for consideration. In Vijay Kumar Talwar's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not ; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.' 20. In Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal [2006] 5 SCC 545, 556 this court has observed that : 'The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence ; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously ; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the bur den of proof. When we refer to decision based on no evidence , it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.' 21. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, particularly in the absence of a substantial question of law being framed in this regard. Therefore, we set aside the conclusion arrived at by the High Court on this question and restore the view of the Tribunal and answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 14. In M. Janardhana Rao's case, Sudarshan Silks and Sarees case and K. Ravindranathan Nair's case supra, the apex court has again reiterated the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions. 15. The principle that if a finding of fact is not challenged as being perverse, the High Court is bound to accept such finding. Therefore, as no such substantial question of law has been framed and the questions pertain to findings of fact, which cannot be said to be perverse as it is evident that the books of account of the respondent had been rejected by the assessing authority, in which case the same books of account could not be relied upon in an addition on account of trade creditors and also for arriving at the closing stock. This is an established principle as has been held in the decisions relied upon by the respondent namely Indwell Constru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
