CIT, LUDHIANA V. M/S SAMBHAV TEXTILES LTD. LUDHIANA

ITA/61/2010

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax against M/s Sambhav Textiles Ltd concerning the assessment year 2005-06. The primary issue was the inclusion of certain sales in the income tax return which were allegedly unaccounted for and on which Central Excise Duty was not paid. The Assessing Officer had made an addition to the income of the assessee based on these alleged unaccounted sales. However, both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that these sales were already included in the income declared by the assessee in their audited accounts and thus deleted the addition. The High Court, upon reviewing the matter, agreed with the lower authorities' findings and dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law was involved.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 720617 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: DENESH GOYAL
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2005-06; Central Excise Duty; Income Tax; Unaccounted sales
• Section: 260-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.61 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.10.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Sambhav Textiles Ltd. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 29.4.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in I.T.A. No.1113/Chd/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT erred in law in agreeing with the decision of CIT(A) holding that sale of Rs.45,19,63,026/- shown in the return filed with ROC includes the sale of Rs.3,66,70,962/- on which Central Excise Duty was not paid. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT erred in law in not upholding the I.T.A. No.61 of 2010 decision of Assessing Officer relating to calculation of the proportionate profit on sale of Rs.3,66,70,962/- on which Central Excise Duty was not paid” 2. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of alleged unaccounted sales. On appeal, CIT(A) deleted the addition with the following observations:- “As already mentioned, the Assessing Officer has also made addition of Rs.52,58,618/- by applying rate of 14.25% to the estimated unaccounted sales of Rs.3,66,70,962/-. Here again the facts that the appellant carried out unaccounted sales of knitted fabric is confirmed by the Central Excise Department. Therefore, the appellant carrying out such sales outside the books of account is undisputed facts not controverted even during the appeal proceedings. However, for making the addition of Rs.52,58,618/- the Assessing Officer has estimated both the sales and profit rate. On the other hand, as is clear from the figures given above against sales of Rs.42,68,83,702/- shown in the audited accounts filed with the return of income, the sales have been shown at Rs.45,19,63,026/- in the documents filed with the Registrar of Companies. As the profit on the sales of Rs.45,19,63,026/- and which came to Rs.1,92,98,200/- has already been considered as income of the appellant, the sales whatsoever, which have not been accounted for in the sales considered in the audited accounts filed with return of income are taken to be covered in the sales reflected in the Balance Sheet with the Registrar of Companies. 2 I.T.A. No.61 of 2010 Once income of the appellant had been held to be assessable at Rs.1,92,822,200/- as against that of Rs.9,984/- shown in the return of income, addition of Rs.53,58,618/- with all fairness should be taken to have been covered in the above addition. As such, there is no need to make separate addition of Rs.52,58,618/- and this addition accordingly deleted.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute the correctness of concurrent finding recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the alleged unaccounted sales which were made the basis for addition to the income of the assessee, were already covered by income declared by the assessee. 5. Thus, no substantial question of law arises. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 13, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3 "