CIT-II CHANDIGARH vs. M/S CROWN MILK SPECIALTIES PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/696/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084831200921 January 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in the absence of rejection of the assessee's books of accounts, the Assessing Officer could not resort to an alternative formula by invoking the norms of Amrit Dairy to make additions. The Tribunal had found no defect or discrepancy in the assessee's books and noted that sufficient quantity-wise records were produced. The court also agreed with the Tribunal that comparing the assessee's first year of business (2004-05) with Amrit Dairy without any material on record was not justified. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for determination. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed to the High Court against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) for assessment year 2004-05. The assessee, M/s Crown Milk Specialties Pvt. Ltd., a company dealing in milk and milk products, claimed its purchase price was based on FAT and SNF content. However, it lacked scientific records to authenticate these contents. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 15 lacs by reducing the loss, comparing the assessee's results with Amrit Dairy. The CIT(A) deleted these additions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, noting the absence of any finding of defect in the assessee's books and that the assessee had produced sufficient quantity-wise records. The Tribunal also considered that 2004-05 was the first year of the assessee's business, making comparison with Amrit Dairy unjustified without supporting material.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer, when the assessee lacked scientific records to authenticate FAT and SNF content in milk purchases, and the AO adopted norms of a comparable concern (Amrit Dairy) for making additions. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The AO was justified in making ad-hoc additions based on the norms of Amrit Dairy, as the assessee did not maintain scientific records for FAT and SNF content, and the additions were made to reduce the loss.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260(A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 21-01-2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh

....Appellant VERSUS M/s Crown Milk Specialties Pvt. Ltd, C-169, I.A., Ph-VIII-B, Mohali.

...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the appellant.

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The Revenue has approached this court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “the Act”) by challenging order dated 29.05.2009 in respect of assessment year 2004-05 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in ITA No.62/CHD/2006. The assessee – respondent is a company which is engaged in sale of milk and milk products. It has claimed that purchase price reflected in the books of accounts was based on percentage of FAT and SNF found in the milk at the time of purchase. There was no scientific record available authenticating the contents of FAT and SNF in the milk maintain by the assessee – respondent. The Assessing Officer after making out the FAT and SNF proceeded to compare the results of the assessee company with Amrit Dairy. Adopting the norms of Amrit Dairy, he -2- made adhoc additions of Rs.15 lacs by reducing the loss. However, the CIT(A) deleted the additions. On further appeal of the Revenue, the Tribunal found that there was no finding showing defect / discrepancy in the books of accounts of the assessee – respondent and that the assessee had produced sufficient records which reflected the entry quantity wise as well. The Tribunal also observed that 2004-05 is the first year of business of the assessee and it was not justified to compare their case with that of Amrit Dairy and that too without bringing any material on record. Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the view of the CIT(A) and maintain the deletion made by him.

We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue at considerable length and find that in the absence of rejection of books of accounts, it would not be possible for the Assessing Officer to resort to some other formula by invoking the norms of Amrit Dairy and then make additions. No question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise for determination of this court. The appeal does not warrant admission and is thus liable to be dismissed.

For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 21-01-2010 manju

More judgments on Section 260(A)

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260(A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →