9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order for the Assessment Year 200809 will apply to Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Tribunal has taken to a different view in the Assessment Year 2008-09 on set of facts, completely different from that existing in the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Thus inapplicable. In our view, the concurrent finding of facts rendered by the authorities under the Act that the appellant-assessee had failed to produce the Registers indicating Production, Issuance and Consumption. Thus the view to reject books of account for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 is a possible view on facts. Therefore it cannot be said to be perverse and/or arbitrary. - Decided against assessee Addition to income - gross profit @ 27% for Assessment Year 2006-07 and 22% for Assessment Year 2007-08 estimated - Held that:- In this case, the estimate has been arrived at on the basis of the material on record and also various statements made by the employees and directors during search and survey proceedings. In fact, the Apex Court in Brij Bhushan Lal Praduman Kumar etc. v/s. CIT [1978 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court] itself clearly lays down that when best judgment Assessment is done, to some extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and the law applicable for both the Assessment Years is identical, except the figures. Therefore, we refer to the facts and figures in Assessment Year 2006-07 and our view thereon would be equally applicable for Assessment Year 2007-08. 4 Re Question (1): (a) The Appellant-assessee is engaged in manufacturing and sale of paneer and trading in milk and other products. There was a search and survey action on 8th May, 2007 on the residential as well as business premises of Director/ related persons of the Appellant-assessee. Consequently, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued on 7th September, 2009. In response, the Appellant-assessee filed its return of income, declaring an income of ₹ 5.68 lakhs. (b) The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings found that the quantities of sale of milk reflected in its books of accounts were not supported by evidence. Therefore, the Assessing Officer in his order dated 29th December, 2009 passed under Section 153(A) read with Section 143(3) of the Act rejected the assessee's books of account under Section 145(3) of the Act. This resulted in estimating its income. (c) Being aggrieved, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deletion of estimated undisclosed income at ₹ 12,54,254/. (g) We find that the Tribunal in its order dated 11th June, 2015 rendered for the Assessment Year 200809 distinguishes its order passed for the subject Assessment Year when compared to the order for the Assessment Year 200809, as under: The Tribunal has decided the issue against the assessee on the premise and the ground that, the books pertaining to production, issuance and consumption have not been maintained by the assessee. Such a ground for rejection of books of account are nonexistent in this year, as we have already stated above that the books of accounts along with the register, which gives the entire details of day-to-day purchase, production / consumption and sales have been not only maintained but were also filed before the AO as well as CIT(A). Another reason for justifying the application of estimation of GP rate by the Tribunal, was that the assessee has failed to submit any details in support of sale of milk. On the contrary, the assessee had stated before the AO as well as CIT(A) that bulk sale have been made through account payee cheques and secondly, day-to-day sales have been recorded, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed the appeals of the AppellantAssesee. However, so far as Assessment Year 2006-07 is concerned it corrected the clerical error resulting in undisclosed income being reduced from ₹ 14,13,628/to ₹ 12.15 lakhs for Assessment Year 2006-07. (c) Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee carried the issue in appeal for both the Assessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 to the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for both the years, inter alia holding that the appellant-assessee had failed to submit details coupled with statement of employees given on oath of (retraction was not found sustainable). This resulted in the estimate of undisclosed income at ₹ 12.15 lakhs of Assessment Year 2006-07 and at ₹ 16.11 lakhs for Assessment Year 2007-08. This estimate on facts of impugned order calls for no disturbance. (d) The grievance of the appellantassesee is that the best judgment assessment done by the authorities, is arbitrary and in the face of the Apex Court's decision in Brij Bhushan Lal Praduman Kumar etc. v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and New Delhi [115 ITR 524]. In the above case, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
