SHRI A KHADAR BASHA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1130/2008HC KarnatakaKAHC01042079200820 January 2015Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal was not justified in adding the difference in price as income. An assessee can arrange their affairs to minimize tax burden, and the revenue cannot ignore the real price fetched in a bonafide transaction.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold rice bran to M/s. Nicko Agro Industries at a lower price than their purchase price, leading the revenue to add the difference as additional income. The assessee's accounts were rejected under Section 145(3).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs.6,58,965/- as deemed additional sale price was justified without any basis, and if the finding of the Tribunal was perverse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 4 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

I.T.A. NO. 1130/2008

BETWEEN :

Shri A. Khadar Basha, Prop. M/s. Chand and Company R.H. Road, Shimoga – 577 201

...APPELLANT

(By Sri. A. Shankar & Sri.M. Lava, Advs.)

AND :

The Asst. Commissioner of Income–Tax Circle-1, Income-Tax Department Shimoga

…RESPONDENT

(By Sri.Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Adv.) . . . .

This I.T.A. is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 31.07.2008 passed in ITA No.390/BNG/2007, for the Assessment year 2004-2005, praying to :

- 2 -

(i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein,

(ii) Allow the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. No.390/BNG/2007 dated 31.07.2008.

This I.T.A. coming on for hearing, this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is an assessee’s appeal against the order passed by the authorities adding a sum of Rs.6,58,965/- as an additional income of the assessee on account of sale of rice bran to a concern.

2.

The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the addition of Rs.6,58,965/- on account of transaction with M/s. Nicko Agro Industries, Omalur being deemed additional sale price without any basis and consequently recorded a perverse finding?

- 3 -

3.

The assessee purchased 139.24 MT of rice bran from M/s. Nicko Agro Industries, Omalur for a total sum of Rs.5,41,695/-. The average purchase price comes to Rs.3,890/- per MT. During the same year, the assessee sold 408.495 MT of rice bran to M/s. Nicko Agro Industries for a sum of Rs.9,30,080/- and the average selling price comes to Rs.2,277/- per MT. The Assessing Authority was of the view that the assessee purchased rice bran from M/s.Venkata Padmavathi Paddy & Rice, Nellore at a higher rate and sold the rice bran to M/s. Nicko Agro Industries at a very low rate. By such sales, the assessee reduced the profit and passed on the benefit to this concern, which also operates from the adjacent premises. Therefore, the Assessing authority proceeded under Section 145(3) of the Income tax Act and rejected the accounts maintained by the assessee. Thereafter, he proceeded to value 408.495 MT of rice bran sold by him at the rate

- 4 -

of Rs.3,890/- per MT based on the average purchase price and thus the difference was arrived at in a sum of Rs.6,58,965/- and that was treated as an additional income of the assessee and taxed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who too dismissed the appeal. The second appeal preferred by the Assessee also met the same fate. That is how the assessee is before this Court.

4.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal V/s. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., reported in 1973(91) ITR 8 has held that “where a trader transfers his goods to another trader at a price less than the market price and the transaction is a bonafide one, the taxing authority cannot take into account the market price of those

- 5 -

goods, ignoring the real price fetched to ascertain the profit from the transaction. An assessee can so arrange his affairs as to minimize his tax burden”.

5.

Similarly, the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat Vs. Keshavlal Chandulal reported in 1966(LIX) ITR 120 has observed that “where a person disposes of his goods at a lesser value than their market price, or at a concessional price, there is nothing in the income tax law which compels him to sell at a price which is the price realisable in the market”.

6.

The only exception in this rule is, if the goods fall under Section 40(A)(2a) where there exists a relationship as set-out in the said provision between the parties. It is not the case of the Department that though the shops are adjoining each other, they are related in any manner. That provision is not invoked.

- 6 -

7.

In the light of the aforesaid statement of law, the authorities were not justified in adding the income, taking the difference between the price at which the rice bran is purchased and rice bran is sold. Therefore, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

(a) Appeal is allowed.

(b) The impugned orders are hereby set-aside.

(c) The impugned order in respect of issue of Rs.6,58,965/- relating to the difference in price of rice bran is hereby set-aside.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

SPS

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →