The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur v. Harikisan Daulatram Wadhwani (Huf)

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 6/2010 (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, NAGPUR VERSUS HARIKISAN DAULATRAM WADHWANI (HUF) PROP. SATGURU HIGHWAY SERVICES, CHIKHALI) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the appellant.Shri C.J. Thakar, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIKANDPRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.DATE:APRIL 26, 2012. The present appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 30.01.2009 as also the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur dated 30.06.2009 holding that the Assessment Officer was not justified in making an addition of Rs.17,49,024/- as income. The Assessment Officer has made an addition of Rs.17,49,024/- due to the unreconciled difference between the account of the H.P.C.L. appearing in the Books of Accounts of the respondent and account of the respondent appearing in the Books of Accounts of H.P.C.L. In the second round of litigation, when the matter was remanded to the Assessment Officer, the Assessment Officer tried to reconcile the accounts but, in view of the inability of the H.P.C.L. to submit the primary documents, the reconciliation was not possible. Since the difference could not be reconciled, the Assessment Officer made an addition of Rs.17,49,024/- as income. The respondent challenged the order of the Assessment Officer in an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 30.01.2009 partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the alternate submission of the respondent and held that the capital of Rs.90,000/- was sufficient to cover the initial investment and, hence, an addition of Gross Profit at Rs.70,000/- + Initial Capital of Rs.90,000/- was justified as against the addition of Rs.17,49,024/- made by the Assessment Officer. The Department took the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the order dated 30.06.2009, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the orderoftheCommissionerof IncomeTax(Appeals) restricting the addition to the extent stated in the order and arrived at the profit adopted by the Assessment Officer himself. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Though there was some difference in the accounts of H.P.C.L. in the Books of Accounts of the respondent and in the accounts of the respondent in the Books of the H.P.C.L., the accounts could not be reconciled in view of the inability of the H.P.C.L. to submit the primary documents. In view of the non-reconciliation, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the alternate submission made on behalf of the respondent and restricted the addition as held by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Since no substantial question of law arises in the appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE