The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. M/S. Puneet Udyog, Plot

I.T.A. No. 337 of 2009IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 337 of 2009Date of Decision: February 16, 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ----Appellant Versus M/s. Puneet Udyog, Plot No. 37E, Sector-6Faridabad. ` ---Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMARHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant. 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?2.Whether the judgment should be reportedin the Digest? **** M.M. KUMAR, J. The Revenue has approached this court by filing instantappeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (for brevity 'theAct') by challenging order dated 08.08.2008 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'F', New Delhi (for short 'theTribunal') in ITA No.2419/D/ 2007 in respect of the assessment year2003-04. The Tribunal has upheld the order dated 14.03.2007passed by the CIT(A), Faridabad, who has deleted the additions ofRs. 34,60,650 made by the Assessing Officer alleging unaccounted I.T.A. No. 337 of 2009 sales. On the appeal filed by the assessee-respondent, CIT(A)forwarded all the submissions made by the assessee-respondent tothe Assessing Officer and has taken into account the remand reportof the Assessing Officer, as also the submission made by theassessee-respondent in paragraph 3.4 of the order of CIT(A)(Annexure-II). The assessee-respondent is engaged in production ofwashing soap and is a partnership firm. The working out of the yieldof 96.35% was correctly done and there was no wastage as suchclaimed by the assessee. Output weight of soap was quitesatisfactory in view of the norms of the industry. The assumptionderived by Assessing Officer from the statement of Sh. DeshBandhu, partner has not been accepted. The purchase work out bythe Assessing Officer at 33% and 24% were found to be factualincorrect and was not accepted by CIT(A) to constitute basis formaking addition. It has been found by the CIT(A) that thepresumptions were not confronted to the assessee-respondentduring the assessment proceedings, which was evident from theassessment order and order-sheet maintained by the AssessingOfficer. The only opportunity given was at the time of rejecting thebooks of account without pin-pointing or bringing out any specificdefects or deficiencies in the line of business and without findingfault with the purchase bills or stock registers. Accordingly, effortsof the Assessing Officer to work out the undeclared sales at Rs.34,60,650/- was found to be without any basis, especially, in viewof the fact that the Sales Tax order dated 29.01.2004 and balance- I.T.A. No. 337 of 2009-3- sheet matched with the income declared in the return. Theassessment was found to be inconsistent with the sales by theassessee in the income tax record which is an authentic document.The CIT(A) held that Assessing Officer could not have found faultwith the sale bills or detected suppressed sale bills or productionresult on sound footings. It was considered to be a case of noevidence for making addition of such a huge amount. The CIT(A) have also examined the chart of comparative yieldon actual method of the assessee from the assessment years 1997-98 to 2003-04. It has been found that the yield is more or lesssame, in the assessment year in question 2003-04, which has beenaccepted by the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 2000-01, the result of the assessee in the assessment year 2003-04 havebeen found to be better at 96.35 and 119.19 on actual weightmethod and sold weight method. The CIT(A) also compared yieldshown by the assessee with the other concerns in the same line ofbusiness or its sisters concerns, where the yield is more or less thesame. The appeal of the revenue before the Tribunal has also failedand the finding recorded by the Tribunal reads as under: The CIT(A) have also examined the chart of comparative yieldon actual method of the assessee from the assessment years 1997-98 to 2003-04. It has been found that the yield is more or lesssame, in the assessment year in question 2003-04, which has beenaccepted by the Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 2000-01, the result of the assessee in the assessment year 2003-04 havebeen found to be better at 96.35 and 119.19 on actual weightmethod and sold weight method. The CIT(A) also compared yieldshown by the assessee with the other concerns in the same line ofbusiness or its sisters concerns, where the yield is more or less thesame. The appeal of the revenue before the Tribunal has also failedand the finding recorded by the Tribunal reads as under: “........As is clearly evident from thecomparative figures given above, the yield shownby the assessee for the year under considerationby both the methods was not only comparablewith that of the previous years but the same wasindeed higher than that of AY 2000-01 and 2001- I.T.A. No. 337 of 2009 -4- 02. It is pertinent to note here that the yieldshown by the assessee at 94.12% in AY 2000-01has been accepted by the Tribunal and relying onthe said decision of the Tribunal, the learned CIT(A) has accepted the yield shown by the assesseeat 96.36% in the year under consideration beinghigher than that of AY 2000-01. Keeping in viewthe said decision of the Tribunal in assessee'sown case for AY 2000-01 on a similar issue aswell as taking into consideration all the facts ofthe case, we find no infirmity in the impugnedorder of the learned CIT(A) accepting the yieldshown by the assessee and deleting the additionmade by the AO on account alleged unaccountedsafe. The same is therefore upheld dismissingground no.1 of the Revenue's appeal.” Moreover, in respect of the assessment year 2001-02, theappeal filed by the revenue being ITA No. 70 of 2009 was dismissedby holding that the concurrent finding recorded by the CIT(A) aswell as the Tribunal were based on appreciation of evidence whichwould not rise any substantive question of law. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue at aconsiderable length and find that no substantive question of lawwould arise for determination of this Court. The question regardingaddition of Rs. 34,60,650/- on the allegation of unaccounted sale isnecessarily a question of fact and the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunalafter re-appreciating evidence have found that there was nothing onthe record to reach a conclusion of any unaccounted sale warranting I.T.A. No. 337 of 2009 addition made to the income of the assessee. As is evident from thepreceding para, the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal examined thematter in detail and found that there was no evidence to supportthe view of the Assessing Officer for making addition. Theconcurrent findings of fact would not warrant any interference ofthis Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 260-A of the Act.The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordinglydismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) Judge 16[th] February, 2010Atul (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Judge