Ram Partap Oil Extractions (P.) Ltd. vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

The petitioner has filed the present appeal raising the following substantial questions of law :

(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is justified to uphold the action of assessing officer that proviso to

section 145 is applicable, in case a Rice Bran Oil extraction unit has not maintained incoming register of Rice Bran/ Rice Phak and outgoing

register for the oil and oil cake ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is justified to uphold the action of learned assessing officer in

applying the proviso to section 145(l) and making addition in the total income, on the ground that for an earlier assessment year (on for a

subsequent assessment year), such an action has been upheld in the case of the assessee ?

(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is justified to uphold the action of learned assessing officer

applying the proviso to section 145(l) while computing business profits of the assessee, on any ground, other than grounds in paras (i) and (ii)

above ?

(iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,06,639 in Rice Bran

Oil Account and Rs. 2,12,280 in De-Oiled Cake Account

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have gone through the relevant record of the case.

We have perused the findings, recorded by the Tribunal in para 8 of its order to the effect :

We may also mention that the assessee did not press the ground as regards addition on account of low yield in DOC amounting to Rs. 2,12,280

before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee and sustained the

addition. This addition is directly connected with the other issue as regards low yield in DOC and rice bran oil upon which the Commissioner

(Appeals) deleted the addition of Rs. 3,06,639. Since the facts of the case were similar to that of the assessment years 1987-88 and 1990-91 in

which I.T.A.T., Amritsar Bench rejected the claim of the assessee, therefore, it is established fact that the books results of the assessee were not

acceptable to the revenue department. The additional fact is that the addition of Rs. 2,12,280 is maintained by the Commissioner (Appeals). This

fact itself proved that the book results of the assessee were not rightly accepted. Otherwise the assessee would not have surrendered the aforesaid

addition. This fact also strengthens the submission of the learned Departmental Representative that the Commissioner (Appeals) was notjustified in

accepting the claim of the assessee on such facts. Since the book results of the assessee were not accepted as correct income could not be

deducted therefrom. The same was rightly rejected by the assessing officer. The Hon''ble Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electricals Vs.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, considering the provisions of section 145 of the Act found the facts that amounts were discovered from search

and the surrender was made by the assessee. The Hon''ble Delhi High Court held that the rejection of the books (4 account was proper. The

estimate on the previous year''s basis was held to be justified. The assessee in his view before the Commissioner (Appeals) also submitted that

yield of the rice bran oil ranges from 12 per cent to 15 per cent and in the case of phak yield of edible oil is 6 per cent to 8 per cent. Admittedly,

the same are higher as compared to the yield shown by the assessee. Even we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has given the finding as

regards higher yield without considering the explanation of the assessee in proper perspective. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the

claim of the assessee without verifying any fact. Since the ground of the department has been that in the assessment year 1990-91 on the same

facts the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the claim of the assessee which view of the Commissioner (Appeals) was ultimately confirmed by the

I.T.A.T., Amritsar Bench. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in deleting the addition on the issue

involved."" (sic)

From a perusal of findings recorded above, invocation of proviso to section 145(l) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be held to be

unjustified.

As far as on the question of addition of Rs. 3,06,639 in Rice Bran Oil account and Rs. 2,12,280 De-Oiled Cake account is concerned, the

counsel for the appellant, while taking us through various documents on record, prayed for reappraisal of evidence, which is not a substantial

question of law if considered as per the guidelines laid down by this court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms. Monica Oswal, Jawahar Lal

Oswal and Miss Ruchika Oswal, .

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.