Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Permali Wallace Limited

MAIT No :: 46 / 2003 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Permali Wallace Limited 07.07.2014. Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for the appellant. This is revenue’s appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, calling in question tenability of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the matter of assessment of Income Tax of the respondent assessee, for the year 1992-93 and 1994-95. The assessee filed a return of income on 29.12.1992, showing a loss of `22,54,069/-. The assessment was completed and the total income assessed was `41,67,759/-. Various additions and deductions were granted. However, in the matter of certain books of Account seized and marked as A/49, an addition of `21,34,150/- was made in the account book by the Assessing Officer. However, in the appeal this amount was reduced from `21,34,150/- to `16,07,156/- and, therefore, this appeal by the department. Even though Shri Sanjay Lal tried to emphasize that both –the authorities Commissioner, Income Tax and the Income Tax –Appellate Tribunal have misconstrued and read the document A/49 in a different manner, but in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the matter has been dealt with in the following manner: “11. Ground Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are against taking peak credit at `27,12,511/- as against `21,34,150/- claimed by the assessee. The impugned action was made as a result of cash credits found in the course of search. The cash credits were admitted and by way of a working it was explained by the assessee that the peak credit amount to `21,34,150/-. AO accepted the same and added it to the total income. However, before the CIT (A), assessee claimed set-off of `8,43,015/- and `4,82,700/- which were added in assessment year 1991-92. With regard to the sum of `4,82,700/-, CIT(A) observed that this amount represented cash withdrawals by the Managing Director on his personal account, hence it could not be said that these withdrawals were rolled over. Accordingly, the set-off was denied. With regard to the set-off of `8,43,015/-, CIT(A) accepted assessee’s claim, but observed that correct peak amount was `27,12,511/- and not `21,34,150/-. Accordingly, he directed the AO and reduced the addition to `18,69,496/- (27,12,511 - 8,43,015). It is against the adoption of peak credit at `27,12,511/- the assessee is in appeal. 12. The learned Counsel drew our attention to page 9 of the paper book which was a summary of the abstract of seized copy of A-49. It was pointed out that the CIT (A) ought to have taken the figure of peak credit as per column E, which was `24,42,138/- and not as per column F, as taken by the CIT(A). 13. We agree with the contention of the learned Counsel that the amount as given in column E should be taken. But again, here it was pointed out by the Bench that the peak credit was `24,50,171/- on 25.3.92 and not `24,42,138/- which was the credit on 24.3.92. The learned counsel agreed to this. Accordingly, we direct that peak credit be taken at `24,50,171/- and from this amount the set of `8,43,015/- should be allowed. Thus, the addition to be –sustained will be `16,07,156/- (24,50,170 8,43,015). We direct accordingly.” It is clear that the Tribunal has gone through the record and has recorded a finding which is a finding of fact and we see no question of law involved in the matter warrant reconsideration. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, we see no question of law involved in the matter warranting any indulgence in a proceeding under section 260-A, of the Act. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) (ALOK VERMA) J U D G E J U D G E Aks/-