PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. SHANTHI FEEDS P LTD.,

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.06.2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759 and 760 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.18986, 18987, 18988, 18989, 18990 and 18991 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. ... Appellant in all the appeals - Vs - M/s.Shanthi Feeds (P) Ltd., 6/15, Main Road, Pappampatti Post Ondipudur, Coimbatore – 641 016 PA : AAJ CS 8030 J ... Respondent in all the appeals Prayer : Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.Nos.307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312 and 313/Mds/2016 dated 13.02.2017. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench in I.T.A.Nos. 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312 and 313/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2012-13, raising the following substantial questions of law for consideration. http://www.judis.nic.in 2 “For all the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2012-13: 1. Whether in the Appellate Tribunal is right in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) on estimated average sale of Poultry Droppings / Manure and rejecting the average stock of birds held during the years as determined by the assessing officer, when the assessee has not maintained any books of account for the same? For only the Assessment Year 2010-11: 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the unaccounted money of Rs.2,37,99,820/- of cash accruals to offset against the purchase of property, when the assessee has not maintained books of account on the sale of poultry droppings / manure?” 2. We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 3. The first question to be considered is as to whether the tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A) for brevity), on estimated average sale of Poultry Droppings / Manure and rejecting the average stock of birds held during the years as determined by the assessing officer. The Assessing Officer calculated the average sales by adopting the quantity of 19.10 Kgs of estimated bird dropping per bird. In this regard, the assessing officer referred to an expert opinion rendered by Professor D.Narahari, Senior Vice President of Indian Poultry Science Association. The assessee had adopted the value of 14 Kg per bird. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 The tribunal took note of the fact that the expert who rendered opinion had ultimately stated that the practical recoverability of manure may not exceed 10 Kgs per bird. Thus, the tribunal found fault with the manner in which the assessing officer completed the assessment, by referring that the assessing officer cannot consider the expert opinion in one part and reject the remaining part. The findings rendered by the tribunal in paragraph 9 of the impugned order is perfectly right and valid. Further more, we find that the CIT(A) had done an elaborate exercise and there is also specific mention made in the order by the CIT(A) that he has gathered information from the market as to, on what rate the poultry manure is sold. Thus, in our considered opinion, the factual position has been thoroughly gone into and re-examined by the tribunal for its correctness and this Court, sitting on appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, cannot re-assess the factual aspects , as if we are the second appellate authority over the tribunal. Therefore, the substantial question of law No.1 that arises for consideration, as framed by the Revenue, is rejected. 4. This leaves us with substantial question of law No.2, as to whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in allowing the unaccounted money of Rs.2,37,99,820/- of cash accruals to offset against the purchase of property. We may straight away refer to the findings rendered by the CIT(A) on this aspect, which is contained in Paragraph 9 of the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 03.09.2015, wherein the CIT(A), while deciding the issue of bird droppings and the amount which has been earned, after assigning elaborate reasons, allowed the sum of Rs.2,37,99,820 /-, earned out of http://www.judis.nic.in 4 poultry droppings by allowing telescoping of cash accruals to off-set the purchase of property. This factual finding was tested for correctness by the tribunal and it had independently gone into the factual position, analysed the records viz., the note book which was seized during its search and upheld the telescoping done by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) as well as the tribunal had examined the factual position and rendered a finding, which cannot be upset in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, in the absence of any perversity established by the Revenue against the finding of the CIT (A) or that of the tribunal. 5. Hence, we are of the clear view that no question of law, much less substantial question law as framed by the Revenue arises for our consideration. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 07-06-2019 KST Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No To 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. AND http://www.judis.nic.in 5 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. kst T.C.(A) Nos.754 to 760 of 2017 07.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in