Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1060 - MADRAS HIGH COURTEstimated average sale of Poultry Droppings / Manure - rejecting the average stock of birds held during the years as determined by the assessing officer - AO calculated the average sales by adopting the quantity of 19.10 Kgs of estimated bird dropping per bird - AO referred to an expert opinion rendered by Professor D.Narahari, Senior Vice President of Indian Poultry Science Association. The assessee had adopted the value of 14 Kg per bird - HELD THAT:- The assessee had adopted the value of 14 Kg per bird. The tribunal took note of the fact that the expert who rendered opinion had ultimately stated that the practical recoverability of manure may not exceed 10 Kgs per bird. Thus, the tribunal found fault with the manner in which the assessing officer completed the assessment, by referring that the assessing officer cannot consider the expert opinion in one part and reject the remaining part. The findings rendered by the tribunal in paragraph 9 of the impugned order is perfectly right and valid. Further more, we find that the CIT(A) had done an elaborate exercise and there is also specific mention made in the order by the CIT(A) that he has gathered information from the market as to, on what rate the poultry manure is sold. Thus, the factual position has been thoroughly gone into and re-examined by the tribunal for its correctness and this Court, sitting on appeal under Section 260A cannot re-assess the factual aspects , as if we are the second appellate authority over the tribunal. Therefore, the substantial question of law No.1 that arises for consideration, as framed by the Revenue, is rejected. Unaccounted money of cash accruals to offset against the purchase of property - assessee has not maintained books of account on the sale of poultry droppings / manure - CIT(A) allowing the unaccounted money of cash accruals to offset against the purchase of property. - HELD THAT:- Factual finding was tested for correctness by the tribunal and it had independently gone into the factual position, analysed the records viz., the note book which was seized during its search and upheld the telescoping done by the CIT(A). CIT(A) as well as the tribunal had examined the factual position and rendered a finding, which cannot be upset in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, in the absence of any perversity established by the Revenue against the finding of the CIT (A) or that of the tribunal. No question of law, much less substantial question law as framed by the Revenue arises for our consideration. In the result, the appeals are dismissed
|