Dhodha House, Kotkapura V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another

ITA/118/2001

AI Insights

M/s Dhodha House, Kotkapura, appealed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, concerning the assessment year 1991-92. The appeal raised several questions of law, primarily challenging the legality of the Tribunal's application of Section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to the rejection of books of accounts and the assessment of income based on presumptions. The Tribunal had previously decided on similar issues in ITA No.50 of 2000 for the assessment year 1988-89, where it ruled against the assessee. The High Court, referencing this earlier decision, dismissed the current appeal, affirming the Tribunal's findings and the application of the relevant legal provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 794403 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Dhodha House, Kotkapura versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK SETHI
• Assessee Lawyers: ALOK MITTAL
• Keywords: Books of Accounts; Gross Profit; Income tax appeal; Assessment Year 1991-92; Presumptions and Conjectures
• Section: 145(1)

Judgement Text

"INCOME TAX APPEAL No.118 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. INCOME TAX APPEAL No.118 of 2001 Date of Decision: 19.12.2014 M/s Dhodha House, Kotkapura ..Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S.WALIA Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL) The appellant-assessee has filed this appeal challenging order dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amrirtsar Bench, Amritsar, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) with respect to assessment year 1991-92 raising the following questions of law:- “ (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, order Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3 are legally unsustainable? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the invocation of the provision of Section 145(1) proviso is legally sustainable where no specific finding as regard rejection of books has been given against the assessee- KUMAR VIRENDER 2014.12.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh INCOME TAX APPEAL No.118 of 2001 2 appellant? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is legally unsustainable in sustaining the CIT (A) order in applying proviso to section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in as much as qua duly maintained books of accounts produced by the assessee-appellant have not been specifically rejected? (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs.90,800/- is legally sustainable, the same being based on mere presumptions and conjectures, which cannot form the basis for adjudication in law? (e) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs.90,800/- is legally sustainable in as much as the same is being based on mere guess work in computing the total consumption of milk ignoring the details furnished by the assessee-appellant in this regard? (f) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs.90,800/- is legally sustainable in as much as the same being based on mere presumptions and conjectures without taking into account the losses on account of burning and pilferage as claimed by the assessee-appellant? (g) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, KUMAR VIRENDER 2014.12.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh INCOME TAX APPEAL No.118 of 2001 3 the enhancing of the gross profit of 86% is legally sustainable without there being any evidence on record to support the same? (h) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the adoption of the percentage at 60% and 40% for Dhodha Sweets and other sweets by the Ld. Appellate Tribunal is legally sustainable, the same being based on mere presumptions and conjectures which cannot form the basis for adjudication in law.” We have heard counsel for the parties. The questions of law arising in this appeal have already been answered against the assessee in ITA No.50 of 2000 M/s Dhodha House, Kotkapura versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another, decided on 28.2.2014, for the assessment year 1988-89. Consequently, the questions of law are answered against the assessee in terms of order dated 28.2.2014 passed in ITA No.50 of 2000 (M/s Dhodha House, Kotkapura versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar and another). ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE 19.12.2014 ( B.S.WALIA ) VK JUDGE KUMAR VIRENDER 2014.12.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this docunt High Court Chandigarh "