M/S DILBAGH INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/346/2007HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01073042200726 November 2007Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that pure findings of fact had been recorded by the authorities below, including the ITAT. Consequently, the Court found no warrant for interference in its appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with these concurrent findings of fact. The Court stated that it would not substitute its own opinion for that of the lower authorities. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law, as contemplated by Section 260A(1) of the Act, arose for its determination. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Dilbagh Industries, a partnership engaged in manufacturing agricultural implements, filed its return for assessment year 2000-01 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,91,677/-. During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,07,930/- to the Trading Account. This addition was based on a survey conducted on 29.3.2000, where the AO alleged a calculation mistake in the inventory valuation. The AO claimed a difference of Rs. 4,44,308/- between book stock valuation and actual stock valuation, estimating a GP rate of 16% for the difference, while the Trading Account showed a GP rate of 15.16%. The AO recalculated the difference to Rs. 5,57,933/-, leading to the addition. The assessee's appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was restricted to the addition of Rs. 1,07,930/-. The ITAT upheld this addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is justified in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee, solely on the ground of a difference in stock valuation taken during a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the valuation was made on an estimated basis and an agreed addition had already been made? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the addition was unjustified as it was based on an estimated stock valuation during a survey and that an agreed addition had already been made. The assessee contended that the ITAT erred in upholding this addition based on a difference in valuation, especially when the valuation was on an estimate. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue before the High Court. However, the AO's action and the ITAT's upholding of the addition imply that the revenue contended that the discrepancy in stock valuation warranted the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA No. 346 of 2007 Date of decision 26 .11 .2007 M/s Dilbagh Industries .. Appellant Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Phagwara .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL PRESENT: Mr.K.L.Goyal, Advocate for the appellant M.M.Kumar, J. The assessee has filed the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the order dated 9.3.2007 ( Annexure P.5) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in ITA No.225 (ASR) 2005 in respect of assessment year 2000-01. It has been averred that the following substantial question of law would arise for consideration of this Court: “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT is justified in upholding the addition made by Assessing Officer in the total income of the assessee , just on the ground that there was some difference in valuation of stock taken on the date of survey made u/s 133 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the valuation of which was made on estimate basis and that too, when an agreed addition has been made on a particular amount” ? The assesse is a partnership concern engaged in the business of manufacturing of agricultural implements. For the assessment year 2000-01 return was filed declaring a total income of Rs.3,91,677/-. At the time of assessment, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,07,930/- in Trading Account on the ground that at the time of survey on 29.3.2000 there was a calculation mistake by the Revenue in preparing inventory of actual stock as at the time of calculation of the figure of Rs.4,44,308 i.e. alleged difference in stock valuation as per books and stock valuation as per actual stock, the GP rate of 16 % was estimated whereas in the Trading Account such profit is 15.16%. Therefore, difference in stock was not Rs. 4,44,308 but Rs.5,57,933/- and accordingly addition of Rs. 1,07,930/- was made. In the appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals), Jalandhar, the challenge was restricted to addition of Rs. 1,07,930/-. This order was affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Amritsar Bench, Amritsar. Having heard the learned counsel for the assessee and perusing the records, we are of the considered view that pure findings of fact have been recorded by the authorities below and no interference of this Court in the concurrent findings of fact would be warranted. The additions in the income of the assessee have been made on estimation basis and this Court in exercise of its appellate juri iction under Section 260A of the Act would not like to substitute its own opinion as against that of the authorities below. No substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260A(1) of the Act would arise for determination of this Court. There is thus no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajesh Bindal) 26.11.2007 Judge okg

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →