D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. M/S Trilok Chand & Party

D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.40/2006CIT, Udaipur Vs. M/s Trilok Chand & Party. Date : 13.9.2006 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIAHONBLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. K.K. Bissa for the appellant.None present for the respondents. ________ Heard learned counsel for the appellant.None has appeared for the respondents in spite ofservice of notice. The facts of the case are that the assesseewas holding the licence for carrying on the business ofcountry liquor, IMFL and Beer. He had submitted hisreturn of income for assessment year 1997-98 atRs.8,79,480/-. The Assessing Officer has rejected thebooks of accounts inter alia on the ground that retailsales are not vouchable and, therefore, he resorted tobest judgment assessment and made additions ofRs.13,32,140/- by applying the net profit rate in countryliquor has business as well as in respect of retail sale of The CIT (Appeals) partly allowed the appealby sustaining the addition at a lump sum of Rs.3 lakhs. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order ofthe CIT (Appeals) the Revenue preferred the appealbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunalfound by considering the fact that the assessee had topay and about which there is no dispute an amount ofRs.75,20,967/- towards short fall in the quantity ofliquor / IMFL during the relevant period and consideringthat it is a part of business loss or business expenditureand considering the average GP rate shown by theassessee, the Tribunal was of the opinion that theadditions of Rs.3 lacs as sustained by the CIT (Appeals)were justifiable and the Revenue's appeal for restoringthe order of the Assessing Officer making largeadditions were dismissed. We are of the opinion that the aforesaidfindings are finding of fact and not raise any question oflaw. In D.B. IT Appeal No.72/2005 CIT Vs. M/s OmPrakash Mula Ram and Party and D.B.I.T. Appeal No.65/2005 both decided on 13.12.2005 it has beenheld by this Court in like circumstances that nosubstantial question of law arises. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. , J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/