Ita/168/2012 Of M/S. Modern Furniture v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2016/14TH ASHADHA, 1938 ITA.No. 168 of 2012 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 669/COCH/2010 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25.05.2012 APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT: ------------------------------- M/S. MODERN FURNITURE, MAIN ROAD,KOTTAKKAL. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------ THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,KOZHIKODE - 673 001. R... BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) R... BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-07-2016, ALONG WITH ITA. NOS. 168, 185, 186, 183, 178, 184 & 173 OF 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: : 2 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THEYEAR 2002-2003 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT.YEAR 2002-2003 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE B:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS).INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 25.05.2012.APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 25.05.2012. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. rv ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------- I.T. Appeal Nos. 168, 185, 186, 183, 178, 184 & 173 of 2012 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5[th] day of July, 2016. JUDGMENT Dama Seshadri Naidu,J. The appellant in these batch of appeals, an assessee, is apartnership firm involved in the business of dealing in furniture. For theassessment years from 2002-2003 to 2008-2009, the assessment wascompleted through Annexure A series of orders, which were confirmedthrough Annexure B orders. Eventually aggrieved, the appellantapproached the appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, assailing theassessments mentioned above. 2. Essentially, the assessments were challenged on the groundsthat: (1) the rejection of the books of account is erroneous andunsustainable; (2) the estimation of the value of the stock is not correct;and (3) the estimation of gross profit is also erroneous. 3. The appellate Tribunal, having rejected the first two grounds,has reduced the gross profit under the third ground, uniformly to 19%across the board. Further aggrieved, the appellant has approached thisCourt 4. A perusal of Annexure C order of the appellate Tribunal reveals that the grounds raised by the appellant have essentially been based on thequestions of fact. As seen, the Tribunal, on an elaborate consideration ofthese issues, has met every ground judicially. We hardly see any questionsof law involved in this batch of appeals. 5. Concerning the rejection of books of account, the Tribunalobserved that the Revenue authorities had found the documents marked asA-13 from the premises of Supreme Agencies and those marked as KK-2from the premises of the assessee. These documents, even as per thepartner of the assessee, Sri. Adattil Pocker Haji, disclosed the actualtransaction. Admission being the best piece of evidence, the assessingauthority and subsequently the appellate authorities have rightly placedreliance on the documents found during inspection. 5. Concerning the rejection of books of account, the Tribunalobserved that the Revenue authorities had found the documents marked asA-13 from the premises of Supreme Agencies and those marked as KK-2from the premises of the assessee. These documents, even as per thepartner of the assessee, Sri. Adattil Pocker Haji, disclosed the actualtransaction. Admission being the best piece of evidence, the assessingauthority and subsequently the appellate authorities have rightly placedreliance on the documents found during inspection. 6. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, the Tribunal foundthat, admittedly, there was a difference in the stock physically found andthat found in the books of account. The seized records, A-13 and KK-2,also bear out the fact concerning the actual stock founded on physicalverification. In the face of irrefutable material available, we, too, are of theopinion that the Revenue has correctly assessed the stock without referenceto the stock register, which was found to be incorrect. 7. Eventually, touching on the estimation of the gross profit, theTribunal, having taken into account the relevant facts and circumstances, has felt that it ought to be uniform at the rate of 19%. It has come onrecord that the books of account maintained by the assessee did not reflectsome transactions and the partner of the firm did admit that the loosesheets found during the course of such operation reflected the actualtransaction. Thus finding a mean among many assessment years, theTribunal, in our view justly, concluded that the gross profit would be at therate of 19% for all the years under consideration. Thus, in the facts andcircumstances, we do not find any questions of law to be addressed by usin this batch of appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE. Rv