M/S Dhodha House, Kotkapura v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar And Another

INCOME TAX APPEAL No.118 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.118 of 2001 Date of Decision: 19.12.2014 M/s Dhodha House, Kotkapura ..Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another. Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.WALIA Present:Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant.Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for the respondents.RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for the respondents. The appellant-assessee has filed this appeal challengingorder dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Amrirtsar Bench, Amritsar, (hereinafter referred to as “theTribunal”) with respect to assessment year 1991-92 raising thefollowing questions of law:- “ (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, order Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3 are legallyunsustainable? (b)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,the invocation of the provision of Section 145(1) provisois legally sustainable where no specific finding as regardrejection of books has been given against the assessee- appellant? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is legallyunsustainable in sustaining the CIT (A) order in applyingproviso to section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inas much as qua duly maintained books of accountsproduced by the assessee-appellant have not beenspecifically rejected? (d)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,the addition of Rs.90,800/- is legally sustainable, thesame being based on mere presumptions andconjectures, which cannot form the basis for adjudicationin law? (e)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,the addition of Rs.90,800/- is legally sustainable in asmuch as the same is being based on mere guess work incomputing the total consumption of milk ignoring thedetails furnished by the assessee-appellant in thisregard? (f)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,the addition of Rs.90,800/- is legally sustainable in asmuch as the same being based on mere presumptionsand conjectures without taking into account the losses onaccount of burning and pilferage as claimed by theassessee-appellant? (g)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, INCOME TAX APPEAL No.118 of 2001 3 the enhancing of the gross profit of 86% is legallysustainable without there being any evidence on record tosupport the same? (h)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,the adoption of the percentage at 60% and 40% forDhodha Sweets and other sweets by the Ld. AppellateTribunal is legally sustainable, the same being based onmere presumptions and conjectures which cannot formthe basis for adjudication in law.” We have heard counsel for the parties. The questionsof law arising in this appeal have already been answered against theassessee in ITA No.50 of 2000 M/s Dhodha House, Kotkapuraversus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another,decided on 28.2.2014, for the assessment year 1988-89. Consequently, the questions of law are answered againstthe assessee in terms of order dated 28.2.2014 passed in ITA No.50of 2000 (M/s Dhodha House, Kotkapura versus Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Jalandhar and another). ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE 19.12.2014VK ( B.S.WALIA )JUDGE