- (1.) 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 Tribunal is justified to uphold the action of AO that proviso to s. 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 Tribunal is justified to uphold the action of learned AO in applying the proviso to s. 145(1) and making addition in the total income, on the ground that for an earlier assessment year (or 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 Tribunal is justified to uphold the action of learned AO applying the proviso to s. 145(1) 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 Tribunal 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 -
(2.) 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 de -oiled cake amounting to Rs. 2,12,280 before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), 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 de - oiled cake and rice bran oil upon which the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 3,06,639. Since the facts of the case were similar to that (in) the asst. yrs. 1987 -88 and 1990 -91 in which Tribunal, 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 CIT(A). 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 CIT(A) was not justified 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 deduced therefrom. The same was rightly rejected by the AO. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electricals vs. Dy. CIT (2003) 180 CTR (Del) 62 : (2002) 258 ITR 188 (Del) considering the provisions of s. 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 of account was proper. The estimate on the previous year's basis was held to be justified. The assessee in his view before the CIT(A) 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 CIT(A) has given the finding as regards higher yield without considering the explanation of the assessee in proper perspective. The CIT(A) has accepted the claim of the assessee without verifying any fact. Since the ground of the Department has been that in the asst. yr. 1990 -91 on the same facts, the CIT(A) dismissed the claim of the assessee which view of the CIT(A) was ultimately confirmed by the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench. Therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition on the issue involved." (sic)
(3.) FROM a perusal of findings recorded above, invocation of proviso to s. 145(1) of the IT 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 CIT vs. Ms. Monica Oswal (2004) 190 CTR (P&H) 56 : (2004) 267 ITR 308 (P&H). Hence, the appeal is dismissed.;