Ita/124/2000 Of M/S Grewal Electronics Corpn v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

ITA No.124 of 2000 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA No.124 of 2000 (O&M)Date of decision : 14.01.2020 M/s Grewal Electric Corporation ...... Appellant VeTSuU Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh & arr. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARTHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN,,, Present :Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocatefor the respondents,for the respondents, ,,, AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 'This appeal has been filed against the order of the Tribunalupholding an addition of Rs.2,72,787/- for the assessment year 1990-199]_ | ?DDuring the course of assessment proceedings the AssessingOfficer noticed a substantial difference between the closing balance in theaccount of the partners/ex-partners as on 31.03.1989 amounting toRs.3,51,405/-. The Assessee was asked to explain the difference and itfiled a reply stating that in the previous six years it was not maintainingcomplete books of accounts and had been filing returns on estimate basisby applying a flat rate on the gross receipts. For the year under referenceit was submitted that profit and loss account and balance sheet were filed but the books were not produced anda flat rate of 10% was once again ITA No.124 of 2000 (O&M) applied which the Assessee agreed to resulting in an addition ofRs.84,730/-. Further plea was that the ‘difference’ represented the incomeof the preceeding assessment year not disclosed in those years butintroduced in the books of accounts as on 01.04.1989. Further plea wasthat these amounts could not be subjected to tax either in the assessmentyear 1990-1991 or in the preceeding Assessment Year since the sumbrought into the books of accounts and credited in the names of differentpartners/ex-partners did not have any attributes of income. Thealternative submission was that in case the amount of Rs.3,51,405/- wasto be treated as income then the Assessee may be permitted to set off asallowed in respect of intangible addition made in earlier years. 3The Assessing Officer considered this matter and declinedboth the prayers holding that the first argument that the amountrepresented income of the previous years would not hold water becauseall the partners had an equal share and if this was so then equal amountwould have been credited into their accounts. 4As regards the set off the Assessing Officer found that the setoft had been claimed for this amount in 01.04.1989 and thereforedisallowed the prayer for setting off the amount under the intangibles ofprevious years. In appeal, the Commissioner Income Tax allowed set offto the tune of Rs.78,618/- in respect of intangible additions pertaining tothe year 1988-1989 but confirmed the remaining addition ofRs.2,72,787/-. In second appeal the Tribunal also held that the source ofthis amount had not been proved and dismissed the appeal. 5]In our considered opinion, no fault can be found with thisfinding of fact. Question of law does not arise, 6.Appeal stands dismissed, vaSince the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI )JUDGE January 14, 2020pooja sharma-lWhether speaking/reasonedWhether Reportable | ( AVNEESH JHINGAN)JUDGEYes/NoYes/No