Tax Case (Appeal) Nos v. M/S.shanthi Feeds (P) Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759 and 760 of2017and C.M.P.Nos.18986, 18987, 18988, 18989, 18990 and 18991 of 2017Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-INo.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. ...Appellant in all the appeals- Vs -M/s.Shanthi Feeds (P) Ltd.,6/15, Main Road, Pappampatti PostOndipudur, Coimbatore – 641 016PA : AAJ CS 8030 J...Respondent in all the appeals Prayer : Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal“A” Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.Nos.307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312 and313/Mds/2016 dated 13.02.2017, against the Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Appeals-18, Chennai, dated 03/09/2015 and made inITA Nos.507 to 513/2014-15 for the Assessment year 2006-2007 to2012-2013; and against the Assessment order of the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -II(i/c) Coimbatoredated 12.03.2014 and made in PAN/GIR No. for theAssessment year 2006-2007 to 2012-2013. For Appellant in all TCAS :Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel For Respondent in all TCAS :Mr.A.S.SriramanJUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the commonorder dated 13.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench in I.T.A.Nos. 307, 308, 309, 310,311, 312 and 313/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2006-07 to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2012-13, raising the following substantial questions of law forconsideration. “For all the Assessment Years 2006-07 to2012-13: 1. Whether in the Appellate Tribunalis right in upholding the decision of theCIT(A) on estimated average sale of PoultryDroppings / Manure and rejecting theaverage stock of birds held during theyears as determined by the assessingofficer, when the assessee has notmaintained any books of account for thesame?For only the Assessment Year 2010-11: 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal isright in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the unaccounted money ofRs.2,37,99,820/- of cash accruals to offsetagainst the purchase of property, when theassessee has not maintained books ofaccount on the sale of poultry droppings /manure?” 2. We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned StandingCounsel for the appellant Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 3. The first question to be considered is as to whether thetribunal was right in upholding the decision of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred toas CIT(A) for brevity), on estimated average sale of PoultryDroppings / Manure and rejecting the average stock of birdsheld during the years as determined by the assessing officer.The Assessing Officer calculated the average sales by adoptingthe quantity of 19.10 Kgs of estimated bird dropping per bird.In this regard, the assessing officer referred to an expertopinion rendered by Professor D.Narahari, Senior Vice Presidentof Indian Poultry Science Association. The assessee hadadopted the value of 14 Kg per bird. The tribunal took noteof the fact that the expert who rendered opinion had ultimatelystated that the practical recoverability of manure may notexceed 10 Kgs per bird. Thus, the tribunal found fault withthe manner in which the assessing officer completed theassessment, by referring that the assessing officer cannotconsider the expert opinion in one part and reject theremaining part. The findings rendered by the tribunal inparagraph 9 of the impugned order is perfectly right and valid.Further more, we find that the CIT(A) had done an elaborate exercise and there is also specific mention made in the orderby the CIT(A) that he has gathered information from the marketas to, on what rate the poultry manure is sold. Thus, in ourconsidered opinion, the factual position has been thoroughlygone into and re-examined by the tribunal for its correctnessand this Court, sitting on appeal under Section 260A of the ITAct, cannot re-assess the factual aspects , as if we are thesecond appellate authority over the tribunal. Therefore, thesubstantial question of law No.1 that arises for consideration,as framed by the Revenue, is rejected. 4. This leaves us with substantial question of law No.2, asto whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in upholding thedecision of the CIT(A) in allowing the unaccounted money ofRs.2,37,99,820/- of cash accruals to offset against thepurchase of property. We may straight away refer to thefindings rendered by the CIT(A) on this aspect, which iscontained in Paragraph 9 of the order passed by the CIT(A)dated 03.09.2015, wherein the CIT(A), while deciding the issueof bird droppings and the amount which has been earned, afterassigningelaboratereasons,allowedthesumofRs.2,37,99,820 /-, earned out of poultry droppings by allowingtelescoping of cash accruals to off-set the purchase ofproperty. This factual finding was tested for correctness bythe tribunal and it had independently gone into the factualposition, analysed the records viz., the note book which wasseized during its search and upheld the telescoping done by theCIT(A). The CIT(A) as well as the tribunal had examined thefactual position and rendered a finding, which cannot be upsetin an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, in the absence ofany perversity established by the Revenue against the findingof the CIT (A) or that of the tribunal. 5. Hence, we are of the clear view that no question of law,much less substantial question law as framed by the Revenuearises for our consideration. In the result, the appeals aredismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are also dismissed. //True copy// KST Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-18, Chennai. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -II(i/c), Coimbatore Central Circle -II(i/c), Coimbatore +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate SR.No.45754 +1cc to Mr.A.S.Sriraman, Advocate SR.No.45521 T.C.(A) Nos.754 to 760 of 2017 PA(CO)GMY(08/07/2019)