The Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 v. M/S.ratan Motors

bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 6162 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-22 … Appellant v/s M/s.Ratan Motors … Respondent Ms.S.V. Bharucha for the appellant. Mr.Abhishek Tilak i/by Sameer Dalal for the respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 2ND APRIL, 2014 P. C. : 1Heard Ms.Bharucha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant revenue. The revenue is in appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2It is submitted that the deletion of addition of Rs.1,06,17,462/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of low gross profit rate would raise a substantial question of law and as formulated at page 4 paragraph 7 of the paper book. 3We are of the opinion that the question as formulated cannot be said to be a substantial question of law. It is nothing but questioning the exercise undertaken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal was considering the correctness of the finding that the Assessing Officer was obliged to call for an explanation and after the explanation is received he ought to have conducted further exercise before the deletion of this addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee declared the gross profit in the current year and it was at a lower rate than the earlier year. The explanation given was, this was due to increase in heavy sale during the current year. Some other reasons were also advanced but the Assessing Officer found that the explanation given with regard to the increase in sale is not supported by any material. The Tribunal found that the assessee is an authorized dealer of automobile and spares, the complete stock tally was maintained, the accounts are audited and the report is furnished along with the return of income. The books of accounts therefore could not have been rejected by the Assessing Officer. The simple reduction in the gross profit rate was not enough to hold that the books were not properly maintained. If there was a substantial increase in the turnover and there was complete stock tally, then, the books of accounts or the entries therein could not have been faulted, is the conclusion reached concurrently. 4To our mind, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the conclusion arrived at cannot be said to be vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. There is thus no substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)