Taxc/33/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Ramdeo Tawri

a&* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR APPEALUNbER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J.HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. TaxCaseNo.33of2012 APPELLANTCommissioner of Income Tax, Raipur(CG)VE RS U SRESPONDENT :Shri Ramdeo Tawri APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 Appearance: Shri Anand Dadariya, Advocate for the Appellant. JUDGEMENT (29th January, 2014) 1. This is an appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (theAct) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BilaspurBench, Camp at Raipur (the Tribunal) dated 01.11.2011 dismissing theappeal filed by the Income Tax Department (the Department) and upholdingthe deletions made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (theCIT-A) in respect of Shri Ramdeo Tawri (the Assessee) for the assessmentyear (AY) 2007-2008. THE FACTS 2. The Assessee filed his return of income on 31.10.2007 showing incomeat ^2,31,685/- and claiming refund of ^37,120/-. The case was processedunder section 143(1) of the Act and the refund was issued. However, thecase was selected for scrutiny and the notice dated 22.07.2008 was issuedunder section 143(2) of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer (the AO) by his order dated 31.12.2009 madeadditions to the extent of ^86,42,700/-. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, fhe Assessee filed an appeal before thethe CIT-A. It was partly allowed on 06.04.2010. 5. Against the aforesaid order, the Department filed an appeal before theTribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appealon 01.11.2011. Hence, thepresent appeal by the Department. TMEDECISION 6. We have heard the counsel for the Department for admission. He haspressed the following three questions for consideration: (i)[Whether][ in][ law][ and][ on][ facts][ and][ circumstances][ of]the case, the ITAT has erred in deleting the additionof Rs. 10,04,038/- madeby the AO on account ofsale of husk produced out of books? (ii)[Whether][ in][ law][ and][ on][ facts][ and][ circumstances][ of]the case, the ITAT has erred in deleting the additionof ^31,16,748/- made by the AO on account of lowyield? (iii)Whether in law and on facts and circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT has erred in deleting the additionof Rs. 41,66,911/- made by the AO on account ofunexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Income TaxAct, 1961 by holding variation in stock shown to bankand as per books of accounts for Obtaining CC limit? 7. The aforesaid three questions relate to three different additions made bythe AO. 1stQuestion 8. The AO had rejected the books of accounts. Thereafter, on assuming thehusk produced to be nearly 20 to 22% of the paddy milled, calculated theprice of the.sale of husk at the rate of =^100/- per quintal. 9.The Assessee filed information obtained from the District MarketingOfficer (the DM0) under the Right to Information Act. On the basis of thesame, the CIT-A held that the price would be between ^30/- to ^40/- andhasconcludedthattheaddjtionappearstohavebeenmadeonpresumptions ratherthan onpositive materials. 10. The aforesaid reasoning and the finding was upheld by the Tribunal. 2nd Question 11. The AO had made addition on the ground that the Assessee had shownthe yield to 67% to the Government whereas in the audit accounts, it wasshown to be 63%. s-il 12. The CIT-A has held that in the custom milling, the Assessee is requiredto deliver 67% of the rice irrespective of the actual production. It is for thisreason, this was shown as the yield of the rice. But this does not mean thatthis was the actual production. 13. The Assessee had shown the production of 63% which was comparablewith the rice milled under the DM0 and as such, the CIT-A held the additionon this ground to be arbitrary. 14. The aforesaid reasoning and the finding was upheld by the Tribunal. ^•' 3rd Question 10. The aforesaid reasoning and the finding was upheld by the Tribunal. 2nd Question 11. The AO had made addition on the ground that the Assessee had shownthe yield to 67% to the Government whereas in the audit accounts, it wasshown to be 63%. s-il 12. The CIT-A has held that in the custom milling, the Assessee is requiredto deliver 67% of the rice irrespective of the actual production. It is for thisreason, this was shown as the yield of the rice. But this does not mean thatthis was the actual production. 13. The Assessee had shown the production of 63% which was comparablewith the rice milled under the DM0 and as such, the CIT-A held the additionon this ground to be arbitrary. 14. The aforesaid reasoning and the finding was upheld by the Tribunal. ^•' 3rd Question 15. The AO had made additions mentioned in the third questions on thebasis of the stock statement alleged to have been produced by theAssessee to the Bank. 16. The Assessee had produced stock register before the CIT-A andaccording to him, this was submitted to the Bank. A perusal of the samerevealed that there was no difference in the quantity except the difference inpaddy of the custom milling where the Assessee was necessarily requiredto give the yield of 67%. 17. It is in view of above, that the CIT-A has deleted the addition. Thisreasoning and the finding was also upheld by the Tribunal. 18.In our opinion, there is no illegality in the reasoning given by the CIT-A.This has also been upheld by the Tribunal.No question of law arises in thisappeal. The tax case is dismissed. J^^-Sd/-Sd/-Prashant Kumar MishraChiefJusticeSubbu/AmitJudgeSd/-Prashant Kumar MishraChiefJusticeSubbu/AmitJudge