Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/2498/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 2498 of 2009
=========================================================
STANDARD
TEA PROCESSING CO LTD (NOW MERGED WITH GUJARAT TEA - Appellant(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JP SHAH with Mr MANISH J SHAH
for
Appellant
None for
Opponent
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI 2nd May 2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Assessee is in appeal
against the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad
Bench [hereinafter referred to as, “Tribunal”]
dated 22nd August 2009, raising following questions for
our consideration :-
“Whether
on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s
finding that the assessee had done unrecorded sale of 30% of
‘khokhas’ worth Rs. 5,36,127/= and had earned undisclosed income of
Rs. 5,36,127/= is perverse and against evidence on record ?”
The
issue pertains to addition of a sum of Rs. 5,36,127/=, confirmed by
the CIT [A] and the Tribunal, towards the sale of wooden boxes by the
assessee during the period in question.
Apparently,
there was a discrepancy in the number of boxes sold – according
to the assessee and those leaving the factory-gate. The Assessing
Officer worked out additions to be made on the basis of such
discrepancy at Rs. 1,30,85,342/=. Assessee carried the issue in
appeal. The CIT [A] reduced the additions to only Rs. 5,36,127/= and
deleted the rest. Still not satisfied, the assessee went in appeal
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT [A].
The assessee is, therefore, before us in the present Tax Appeal.
We
have heard learned counsel Mr. J.P Shah for the appellant and perused
the orders on record with his assistance. He has taken us through the
synopsis, extracts of sale of scrap and the relevant discussions made
in the orders.
Counsel
submitted that the assessee receives Tea in different wooden boxes.
Many of these boxes get damaged in transit. Only those boxes which
were re-used and not seriously damaged would fetch any re-sale price.
The employees of the assessee-company would, in consultation with the
contractor purchasing such wooden boxes, would estimate the
percentage of intact and damaged boxes and fix the price of only
those boxes which were found re-useable. The accounts, therefore,
would reveal only those boxes which were not seriously damaged and
were thus sold. On the other hand, the security personnels employed
at the gate would keep strict vigil and record every box –
damaged or otherwise, which left the factory premises. He also
contended that the Assessing Officer in his regular assessment did
not find any reason to add such amount.
This
matter was also explained by the assessee before the authorities as
well as before this Court. We, however, find that this issue is
purely factual in nature. The CIT [A] had in its detailed order taken
into account all the explanations rendered by the assessee and found
that sales of 30% of the boxes were not recorded and only 70% boxes
were recorded. He, therefore, estimated the sales on this account to
the extent of Rs. 5,36,127/=, however, deleted the balance; contrary
to the opinion of the Assessing Officer. The addition made by the CIT
[A] was confirmed by the Tribunal.
When
on this issue, the Assessing Officer, CIT [A] as well as the Tribunal
held that only 70% sales of wooden boxes is recorded in the books and
the balance is not recorded, we find that no substantial question of
law arises. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
{Akil
Kureshi, J.}
{Ms.
Sonia Gokani, J.}
Prakash*
Top