Taxc/38/2008 Of Income Tax Officer v. M/S Gopal Rice Mill

\^¥ 'ax Case (Income Tax Appeai) No. 38 of 2008 Income Tax Officer -1 (3) Raipur (CG)l^M/s Gopa! Rice Mill, Lawan Road, BalodaBazar (CG) *=?^s?; a. Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, learned counsei for the appellant.Mr. Shashank Dubey, learned Sr. Advocate with Ms. Smiti Sharma,iearned counsel for the respondent. (Passed on 14th September, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J This income tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short '1:he Acf') against the impugned order of the incomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (for brevity "theTribunal") has been admitted on following substantia! questioniaw: 01. 'Whether, on the facts and circumstance of the case,the Income Tax Appellate Tribiinal was justified inlaw in deleting the addiffon confirmed by the C!T{AppeaSs)amountingtoRs.41,04,016/-wh'iieoveilooking the fact ff?af cfetailad working given inffieassessmentorderwasbasedonfiguiesemerging from assesee's own books of accountsand it was not arrived at on presumptions?" Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is the ownerof Rice Mill and derives income from manufacturing rice and itsbyproducts. The return filed by the assessee for the relevant yearwas selected for scrutiny and accordingiy, notice was issuedunder Section 143(2) of the Act to the assessee.The AssessingOfficer(AO)after completingassessment proceedings underSection143(3)of theAct,madeadditionof Rs.43,01,514/-considering the amount of suppression of Rs.32,85,475/- on saleof rice and Rs.8,18.541/- on sale of broken rlce. 02. The Commissioner of 'ncome Tax (Appeals) {in short "CIT(A)"}partiy[allowed][ the][ appeal][ by][ sustaining][ the][ addition][ made][ by][ the]AO to the extent of Rs.41,04.016/-. However, the Tribuna! aliowed 03. -i the appeai of the assessee, set aside the addition sustained by theC!T(A), with a finding that the assessee is maintaining the reguiarbooks of accounts, which are duiy audited, and the day-to-daystock register; no defect was found by the AO in the books ofaccounts or stock register maintained by the assessee; the grossprofit as well as overai! yield disclosed by the assessee is betterthan the gross profit and yield as compared to preceding twoyears; and that the AO has not founda single instance ofsuppression of sales by the assessee. 04.ShriS.RajeshwarRao,iearnedcounselappearingfor theippeHanVrevenue submits that the AO made the above additionafter working out the suppression made by the assessee. Thereasoning assigned by the AO was that the assessee wouid notse!i the polished rice at iower rate than at which the raw rice waspurchasedby theassessee.However,theTribunaiwithoutconsidering the above glaring inconsistency in the conduct of theassesses, has sumrnarily ailowed the appeai of the assessee bypiacing reiiance on the books of accounts, which stood impiiediyrejected. 05.On the other hand, learned counsei for the respondent argues thatthe AO made the addition on conjectures and surmises withoutfinding any fauit with the books of accounts and without rejectingtl'ie same, the profit has been assessed on the basis of yieldassessment, whlch is contrary to fhe books of accounts kept durinsthe process of business ofthe Rice Mlll.the AO made the addition on conjectures and surmises withoutfinding any fauit with the books of accounts and without rejectingtl'ie same, the profit has been assessed on the basis of yieldassessment, whlch is contrary to fhe books of accounts kept durinsthe process of business ofthe Rice Mlll. 05.On the other hand, learned counsei for the respondent argues thatthe AO made the addition on conjectures and surmises withoutfinding any fauit with the books of accounts and without rejectingtl'ie same, the profit has been assessed on the basis of yieldassessment, whlch is contrary to fhe books of accounts kept durinsthe process of business ofthe Rice Mlll.the AO made the addition on conjectures and surmises withoutfinding any fauit with the books of accounts and without rejectingtl'ie same, the profit has been assessed on the basis of yieldassessment, whlch is contrary to fhe books of accounts kept durinsthe process of business ofthe Rice Mlll. 06.Reiiance has been placed on the orcfer dated l^April, 2009passed[in][ Commiss'ioner][ of][ income][ Tax,][ Circle-1,][ Raipur][ Vs.][ M/s]Gupta Enferprises, Vk'herein this Court reiying upon the judgment inthe matters of Bandi Cooperative Labourand Construction Societyl/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 300 !TR 107 (P&H), hasheid that the dispute regarding method of estimation of sale valueand estimation of income on the basis of sale vaiue can, by nostreteh of imagination, be considered to be a substantia! questionof !aw.passed[in][ Commiss'ioner][ of][ income][ Tax,][ Circle-1,][ Raipur][ Vs.][ M/s]Gupta Enferprises, Vk'herein this Court reiying upon the judgment inthe matters of Bandi Cooperative Labourand Construction Societyl/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 300 !TR 107 (P&H), hasheid that the dispute regarding method of estimation of sale valueand estimation of income on the basis of sale vaiue can, by nostreteh of imagination, be considered to be a substantia! questionof !aw. have heard learned counsel for the parties. 08.Keeping in view the reasons assigned by the Tribuna! in para 11 ofits order, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of iaw,as proposed by the appeilant, is involved for adjudication of thisappeal. The appeal being wlthout substance deserves to bedismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/-Sd/-Dhirendra MishraR.N. ChandrakarJudgeJudge