Late Radhey Krishna Sao v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I, Patna

MISC. APPEAL No.131 OF 2004 ***** Against the order dated 21.11.2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in ITA No.268/Pat/2003 upholding the order dated 28.3.2003, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (A)-II, Patna, in ITA No.0041/P/A-II/2002-03. ***** Late Radhey Krishna Sao, Prop: M/s Shankar Traders, through legal heir Shri Ravi Shankar Gupta (Son), Gola Road, Nawada. .... Assessee-Appellant. Versus 1. Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Patna. 2. Income-tax Officer, Ward, Biharsharif. ...Assessing Officer- Respondents.***** For the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Rastogi, Advocate, Mr. B.N. Sinha, Advocate & Mr. Shailendra Kumar,Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Counsel for the I.T. Deptt. ***** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA ***** S K Katriar & S K Sharma, JJ. The assessee (the appellant herein) has preferred this appeal under the provisions of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟), and is directed against the order dated 21.11.2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in I.T.A. No.268(Pat)/2003 (Sri Radhe Krishna Sao Vs. I.T.O., Biharsharif), whereby the assessee‟s appeal has been dismissed and the order of the learned Assessing Officer as well as the learned Tribunal have been upheld. 2. This case has a chequered history. It is with respect to assessment year 1993-94. The original assessee died during the present proceedings and has been substituted by his heirs and the legal representatives. The assessee was a businessman dealing in whole-sale business in Sugar, mustard oil. He submitted his returns followed by the revised returns. The learned Assessing Officer did not accept the returns and rejected the same by order dated 11.1.1995, whereby he has made certain additions to the gross income. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A-II), Patna, which was allowed by the order dated 7.8.1995, and the additions made by the learned assessing authority were set aside. The Department preferred further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, which was allowed by order dated 26.11.1998, passed in ITA No/658 /Pat/1995, the order of the learned appellate authority was modified, and the matter was remitted to the learned Assessing Officer to examine the correctness of the returns as well as the books of accounts with a view to consider the validity of additions. 3. The remand order was carried out. The learned Assessing Officer examined the books of accounts as well as the number of creditors of the assessee. On a consideration of the entire materials on record, he passed a fresh order dated 18.1.1999, whereby he held that the revised returns as well as the books of accounts produced by the assessee were unreliable. He, therefore, found adequate justification for the additions. The finding recorded by the Assessing Officer is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “In view of the foregoing discussions for evidences with regard to trade creditors as adduced by the assessee are not reliable. Hence they are not accepted. The books of A/cs maintained by the assessee for the year under consideration are rejected by invoking the provisions of section 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The cognizance of the revised return is also not accepted as it has been filed only on 3.3.94 after the detection of concealed purchases/payments by this office. The total income of the assessee is computed as under:” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patna, which was dismissed by the order dated 28.3.2003, and the order of the learned Assessing Officer was upheld. Aggrieved by the “In view of the foregoing discussions for evidences with regard to trade creditors as adduced by the assessee are not reliable. Hence they are not accepted. The books of A/cs maintained by the assessee for the year under consideration are rejected by invoking the provisions of section 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The cognizance of the revised return is also not accepted as it has been filed only on 3.3.94 after the detection of concealed purchases/payments by this office. The total income of the assessee is computed as under:” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patna, which was dismissed by the order dated 28.3.2003, and the order of the learned Assessing Officer was upheld. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the assessee preferred the next appeal before the learned Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned order and the order of the learned appellate authority has been upheld. Hence this appeal at the instance of the legal representatives of the original assessee. 5. This appeal was admitted by order dated 22.12.2006, and the following questions of law were formulated for adjudication by this Court: “1. Whether in view of the depositions of cash and trade creditors, confirming the factum of loans and advances, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in sustaining addition of Rs.5,60,630/- on account of undisclosed purchases, the source of which were loans and advances taken from cash and trade creditors and addition of Rs.18,703/- on account income earned thereon?” “2. Whether in view of the depositions of the cash and trade creditors confirming the transaction the assessee can be said to have discharged the onus u/s 68 of the I.T. Act in view of decision of this Hon‟ble Court in the case of Saraogi Credit Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar reported in 103 ITR page 344?” 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us on a perusal of the materials on record that the issues are concluded by findings of facts concurrently found by the three authorities. The powers of this Court to interfere with findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal are very limited. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in M.Janardhana Rao Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in (2005) 273 ITR 50 and in Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. P.Mohanakala,reported in (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC).7. In that view of the matter, we do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the learned Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises in the facts and circumstances of the case. In that view of the matter, both the questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. (S K Katriar, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 31st day of August, 2009. S.K.Pathak/ (N.A.F.R.)