Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 189 - HC - Income TaxRejection of books of accounts - non maintenance of stock register - Held that:- The grievance of the assessee that mere non maintenance of stock register would not warrant rejection of the books of account putting a reliance upon the decision of this Court in R. B. Bansilal Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Poona [1969 (3) TMI 17 - BOMBAY High Court ] but in the above case, there is a finding of fact that in view of the nature of industry, it was not practicable or possible to keep account of the stock. In the case before us, it has never been the case before the authorities under the Act or even before us that it was not possible to maintain production register. Therefore, the above submission on behalf of the Assessee has no merits in the context of the present facts. Subsequent Assessment Year 2008-09, the Tribunal on an identical set of circumstances accepted the books of accounts as maintained - Held that:- In view of the distinction in facts as recorded by the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2008-09, it cannot be said that its 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 there would be element of guess work and so far as estimate is relatable to some evidence or material, it cannot be said that the estimate, is perverse and/or wild. Thus, there is no merit in the above submission on behalf of the Appellant-assessee. Whether the statement made by the employees/ director during the course of search and survey cannot be the basis for arriving at undisclosed income of the Assessee? - Held that:- CBDT Circular dated 10th March, 2003 would not be applicable to the present facts. The Circular was issued when it was brought to the notice of the CBDT that the assessees were forced to confess to undisclosed income during the course of a search. This forced confession formed the basis attributing undisclosed income to the assessee in absence of any credible evidence in support of the confesion. In the present facts, the statement which are made by the employees were indubitably voluntarily made and not forced. The subsequent retraction was not found acceptable by the Authorities. These are questions of appreciation of facts and unless the nonacceptance of retraction is shown to be perverse no interference in the present facts is called for. - Decided against assessee.
|