9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of income based on rejected books of account, Best judgment assessment, Addition to income by Assessing Officer, Reduction of additions by CIT(A), Tribunal's decision to delete additions, Methodology adopted for estimation of income, Different methods adopted for country liquor and IMFL, Entitlement for deductions, Remitting the case back to Tribunal. Analysis: The judgment involves the appeal arising from an order passed by the Tribunal regarding the assessment for the year 1994-95. The respondent, a liquor contractor, had his books of account rejected by the Assessing Officer due to unverifiable sales and lack of control on pricing. Consequently, a best judgment assessment was made, resulting in significant additions to the declared income. The CIT(A) reduced some lump sum amounts from the additions. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, stating that additions couldn't be made without evidence. The revenue contended that the Tribunal overstepped by seeking definite evidence for additions based on rejected books. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer and Tribunal relied on the rejected books to estimate income. The methodology involved considering verifiable factors like purchase prices to arrive at the best judgment assessment. The Court observed that the Tribunal's decision to delete additions was based on accepting the rejected books as correct, which was contradictory. It emphasized the need for the burden of proof on the assessee to show the correctness of the declared results. The Court found the Tribunal's decision not sustainable in law as it failed to consider the undisputed facts used by the Assessing Officer for the assessment. The Court highlighted the confusion in the Tribunal's approach, which led to the deletion of the additions. The Court also raised a question regarding the different methods adopted for estimating income in the cases of country liquor and IMFL, suggesting the need for clarity and proper deductions before arriving at taxable income. Consequently, the judgment set aside the Tribunal's decision and remitted the case back for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
|
