Ita/1/2006 Of M/S.nidhish Trading Company v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 ITA.No. 1 of 2006() ------------------- ITA.239/COCH/2001 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE ---------------------------------------------- M/S.NIDHISH TRADING COMPANY, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/REVENUE ------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT FOR R1 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, ALONG WITH I.T.A. NO.2/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... .................................................................... Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Even though appeals are filed by the assessee, counsel who filed thecases for the appellant submitted that he has relinquished vakalath and thematter was informed to the party and their Chartered Accountant twomonths back. Since the appellant has not chosen to engage counsel, wehave perused the records, heard Standing Counsel for Income TaxDepartment and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 2. The appellant, a firm engaged in procurement and transport offirewood to Grasim Industries, Mavoor, produced books of accounts forverification by the Assessing Officer. However, it was noticed that billsand vouchers contained no specific details about suppliers or even place ofsourcing of firewood. It is not known why the assessee failed to showdetails of the transactions in the bills and vouchers produced. In theabsence of reliable records, the Assessing Officer estimated income at 8%of the total receipts. Even though first appellate authority reduced theestimation to 4%, the Tribunal on further appeal refixed the same at 7.5% of the gross receipts. Even though assessee is questioning the estimation ofgross profit at 7.5%, we do not find any question of law arising from theorder of the Tribunal because if accounts are unreliable, option is only toestimate the profit. The three authorities have fixed different rates onlyprove that it is a decision on facts. Consequently we decline to interferewith the finding of fact entered by the Tribunal by refixing rate of profit at7.5% of the gross receipts. So far as depreciation is concerned, we findthat the appellant themselves did not press the issue before the Tribunal.In any case they cannot claim higher rate of depreciation for vehicles usedfor transport of goods in their own business. Since higher rate ofdepreciation on lorry is available only for lorries given on hire, appellantwas rightly declined higher rate claimed by them. No question of law arisesfrom the finding of the Tribunal on this issue also. We, therefore, dismissthe appeals filed by the assessee. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge