GANESH JUTE TRADING VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 2000 PTD-PATNA-HIGH-COURT-INDIA 1083 (1996)

Income-tax---

----Reference---Accounting---Rejection of books of account---No allegation of change in method of accounting---Rejection of books of account. in relevant year whether justified---Question of law---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 145 & 256.

Held, that the question whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the books of account were rightly rejected by the Tribunal applying the provisions of section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the addition of Rs.2,67,952 could, therefore, be sustained, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal in upholding the rejection of the book profits shown by the assessee was not vitiated by reasons of surmises and suspicion, particularly, when there was no allegation of change in the method of accounting from what was accepted by the authorities for the previous years were questions of law which had to be referred to the High Court.

K. N. Jain, A. K. Rastogi and B. N. Nayak for Appellant.

L. N. Rastogi and S. K. Sharan for Respondent.

JUDGMENT

This is an application under section 256(2) of-the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, whereby it has dismissed the application of the assessee filed under section 256(1) of the Act.

It appears, the assessee by filing the application required the Appellate Tribunal to state the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal, dated January 12, 1995, in I.T.A. No. 511/Pat of 1992 to this Court:

"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal in upholding the rejection of the book profit shown by the petitioner is not vitiated by reason of its reliance upon suspicion, surmises as also on wrong facts?

(ii) Whether, the addition sustained by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse as the same is based on wrong facts?

(iii) Whether, even otherwise there is no justification for confirming the addition of gross profit which calculates at 28 percent. against the gross profit applied by the Income-tax Officer at 18 percent. and reduced to 16 percent. by the Tribunal in another case of the same locality?

(iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the trading result of the petition and confirming Rs.2,00,016 in jute account without establishing that there was any suppression of the purchase and sale (sic)?

(v) Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal upholding the rejecting book profit is perverse and based on wrong fact and also on no appreciation of important facts germane to the appellant's case which was placed in the paper book filed before it?"

We have heard Mr. Jain, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee, and Mr. Rastogi, Senior Advocate for the Income-tax Department, as also perused the impugned order and the proposed questions for reference. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not satisfied with the views expressed by the Appellate Tribunal, while rejecting the prayer of assessee.

Accordingly, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions before this Court:

"(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the books of account were rightly rejected by the Tribunal applying the provisions of section 145(1) of the Act and the addition of Rs.2,67,952 can, therefore, be sustained?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal in upholding the rejection of the book profit shown by the assessee is not vitiated by reason of surmises and suspicion, particularly, when there was no allegation of change in the method of accounting to what was accepted by the authorities for the previous years?"

This petition is, thus, disposed of.

M.B.A./3359/FC ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.