Ita/315/2014 Of Jagraon Rice Mills v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ludhiana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. ITA3152014 (O&M)Date of decision:2403.7015 The Jagraon Rice Mills, Jagraon (Punjab) through its partner Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. ..Appellant Versus. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAMHONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON5BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SAANDHAWALI Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate, | with Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate, © Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate, and Mr. Deepanshu Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. | ee S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (QRAL) CM21267CI]2014 (for exemption) The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. — CM21768CI]2014 (for condonation of delay in refiling) This is an application for condoning 23 days’ delay in re-filing the| appeal. | For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 23 days|in re-filing the appeal is condoned. ITA3152()1 This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate|Tribunal dated 24.11.2011 allowing the appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) set aside the addition made by the A.O. of | 426 lacs on account of unexplained investment in unaccounted purchasesand unexplained cash credits introduced to make investment in unaccounted purchases. — 2 |The appeal raises no question of law leave alone a substantial|question of law. Admittedly, there were serious discrepancies between thestatement filed before the tax authorities and the statement filed before the|appellant’s bank. The appellant had filed a return of income of=1,10,780/-. |Upon investigation, the authorities came across the statements filed by theappellant with its bank. The statements showed purchases to the extent of426 lacs, sales to the extent ofL11 lacs and a closing stock of)=15 lacs.Audited statements of account were also filed with the bank. The same werecertified by the Chartered Accountant and by the appellant’s partner. Thesestatements were at variance from those furnished to the authorities. The'appellant admits the same. The appellant’s case is that they deliberately fileda statement before the bank with incorrect particulars in order to avail largerfinancial facilities. We will proceed on the basis that mere discrepancies inthe figures is not a ground for making the addition. The Tribunal, however,has dealt with the facts in considerable detail and on the basis of the’evidence available come to the conclusion that the assessment order addingthe amount was correct. It is not possible to hold that the view taken by theTribunal is perverse or unsustainable. It is to say the least a possible view.Some of the factors considered by the Tribunal are these. There weredifferences not only in the valuation of the closing stock, but in the purchaseaccount and the sales account as also the balances due from the parties.Apart from what is stated earlier, the balances of two creditors were on thehigher side to the tune ofL10 lacs in the balance sheet. The appellant,admitted that the figures furnished to the bank were manipulated. Theappellant admittedly obtained two sets of accounts which were at a variance.Both the statements of account were audited and signed by the same auditorson the same day. The two sets of accounts were signed by the same partners. No additions were made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 onaccount of the credits otfL10 lacs. The CIT (Appeals) held that there was no.material to show that the appellant made purchases of=26 lacs outside the.books of accounts. In view of these facts, the Tribunal took a different view.The Tribunal also noted that there were also other variances in the two'Statements of account. It was for the appellant to establish which of theStatements were correct. The appellant failed to discharge the onus. 3 |In these circumstances, we find that no question of law arises in the|present case. It is a question of appreciation of evidence.4The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 24.03.2015Amodh (S.J. VAZIFDAR)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) |JUDGE|