TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JESH BINDAL JJ. K. L. Goyal for the appellant. Yogesh Putney for the respondent. JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated January 30, 2004, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-A, Chandigarh, in ITA No. 813/Chand./2004 in respect of the assessment year 2000-01 proposing the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax, rejecting the books of account and applying section 145(3) of the Act ibid, to determine the total income of the assessee ? (ii) Whether the es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g reasons : (i) In the previous assessment year, the gross profit rate was 8.59 per cent. and the explanation that in the current year sales were made to the Government agencies did not justify a lower gross profit rate. (ii) No inventory of closing of stock was prepared and no stock register was kept ; the purchases were without bills, no payment slips were produced, wood was purchased in quintals while sale was made by measurement. (iii) The sale of crates was of Rs. 2.89 crores as against sale of timber of Rs. 50.74 lakhs. (iv) Comparable sales were of the gross profit rate on 13.15 per cent. 3. The Assessing Officer disallowed telephone expenses to the extent of Rs. 5,000 for personal use in the business record ; the sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tantial question of law arises on the findings recorded and the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The view taken by the authorities below is a possible view on appreciation of material on record. 8. We may, however, refer to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee which are as under : (1) St. Teresa's Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1970] 76 ITR 365 (Ker). (2) Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 192 (P H). (3) Jindal Aluminium Ltd. v. Deputy CCT [1999] 115 STC 257 (Karn) (4) Mani and Co v. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 563 (Ker) (5) Joseph Thomas and Bros. v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 796 (Ker). (6) Tara Chand Hari Ram v. Sales Tax Tribunal [1972] 30 STC 342 (P H). (7) CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s maintainable on a substantial question of law. Secondly, the books of account were not rejected in that case. 13. In Joseph Thomas and Bros. v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 796 (Ker), it was held that gross profit rate disclosed by other cases could not be relied upon without furnishing the details to the assessee. The said judgment is also distinguishable as in the present case, the gross profit rate has been estimated on overall view of the matter and after opportunity to the assessee. 14. In Tara Chand Hari Ram v. Sales Tax Tribunal [1972] 30 STC 342 (P H), it was held that best judgment assessment could not be arbitrary. This judgment also has no application on the facts of the present case. 15. In CIT v. K. Y. Pilliah and sons [1967 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
