Ita/139/2000 Of Smt. Mohinder Kaur v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

ITA No. 139 of 20001] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 139 of 2000Date of decision: 28.1.2020 Smt. Mohinder Kaur .. Appellant Vv Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and another.. Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEBEESH JHINGHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEBEESH JHING Present:Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing Counsel andMs. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel forthe respondents. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. By this common order, two appeals bearing ITA Nos. 138 and139 of 2000 are being disposed of as similar issue is involved. The appealsare for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. For the sake ofconvenience, facts from ITA No. 139 of 2000 have been taken. Followingsubstantial questions of law have been claimed: “(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders Annexures P-l, P-2 and P-3 are _ legally ITA No. 139 of 2000|2]| &6&(,+',:)%B ?++@Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, theaddition of Rs. 3,52,607/- can be legally sustained, basedon rejection of books of account but there being nodiscrepancy in the documents produced before theAssessing Authority and the same having been acceptedas correct?addition of Rs. 3,52,607/- can be legally sustained, basedon rejection of books of account but there being nodiscrepancy in the documents produced before theAssessing Authority and the same having been acceptedas correct? (i411) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, threspondents were legally justified in making the additionof Rs. 3,52,607/- on account of income from sale ofIMFL liquor on mere presumptions and surmises withoutthere being any independent evidence on record tocorroborate the same?respondents were legally justified in making the additionof Rs. 3,52,607/- on account of income from sale ofIMFL liquor on mere presumptions and surmises withoutthere being any independent evidence on record tocorroborate the same? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, theaddition of Rs. 3,25,607/- is legally sustained in view ofthe decision of the learned Tribunal in the cases of M/sAnil Kumar Dogra and Company reported in ITA No.564/Chandi/93 and in the case of Som Dutt Dogra & Co.reported in ITA No. 565/Chandi/93?”addition of Rs. 3,25,607/- is legally sustained in view ofthe decision of the learned Tribunal in the cases of M/sAnil Kumar Dogra and Company reported in ITA No.564/Chandi/93 and in the case of Som Dutt Dogra & Co.reported in ITA No. 565/Chandi/93?” The facts necessary for adjudication are that the return for theassessment year 1990-91 was filed declaring income oT=1,01,880/-. Thecase was taken up for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer considering that noSale register, stock register, sale vouchers were maintained and there was nobreakage claimed by the assessee, rejected the books of account being notverifiable and made addition vide order dated 31.].1992. The dispute in the present appeal is with regard to 1% estimated ITA No. 139 of 2000}3]] profit on the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for short, 'IMFL'). Theassessee had made sales to the tune of41,23,65,531/- and claimed losses.The Assessing Officer considered the tact that the assessee was in liquorbusiness since long and there are no reasons given for the loss incurred andthereafter made addition. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 29.9.1992.The appeal before the Tribunal met the same fate on 25.4.2000, hence thepresent appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that a certificate tromthe Excise Authorities with regard to sale and purchase of liquor wasproduced before the Assessing Officer and there was no occasion to doubtthe same and to estimate profit of 1% on sale of IMFL, ITA No. 139 of 2000}3]] profit on the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for short, 'IMFL'). Theassessee had made sales to the tune of41,23,65,531/- and claimed losses.The Assessing Officer considered the tact that the assessee was in liquorbusiness since long and there are no reasons given for the loss incurred andthereafter made addition. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 29.9.1992.The appeal before the Tribunal met the same fate on 25.4.2000, hence thepresent appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that a certificate tromthe Excise Authorities with regard to sale and purchase of liquor wasproduced before the Assessing Officer and there was no occasion to doubtthe same and to estimate profit of 1% on sale of IMFL, The contention raised lacks merit. The certificate produced waswith regard to lifting of quota of IMFL and the sale thereof. It was only withregard to quantitative figure and not of the sale figure. The AssessingOfficer had accepted the sale figure shown by the assessee but in theabsence of any reliable evidence and the books of account being not worthreliance, rejected the losses claimed on sale of IMFL. Considering thevarious aspects, 1% profit was estimated on the sale figure shown by theasse@SSee€ In the absence of any serious challenge to the rejection of booksof account, the estimation of profit is not unreasonable or arbitrary. Therewas neither any sale register maintained nor there were sale bills. Theauthorities had appreciated the factual aspect and evidence before them. Nointerference is called for in the estimated profit of 1% on sale of IMFL. ITA No. 139 of 20004] No question of law much less substantial question of law arises.The appeals are dismissed, (AVNEESH JHINGAN)(AJAY TEWARI)JUDGE JUDGE28.1.20209*Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/NoWhether reportable:Yes/No