Rakesh Paul Sharma Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range - Court Judgment

K.S. Radhakrishnan, C.J.

1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench in ITA No. 215(Asr.)/2002.

2. We are in this case connected with the assessment year 1997-98. The Assessing Authority had made trading addition of Rs. 5,13,140 after rejecting the books of account produced by the assessee. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer, rejecting the books of account, before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who had found no illegality in the order passed by the Assessing Officer rejecting the books of account. Orders passed by the authorities below were questioned by the assessee before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

3. The first issue, which was considered by the Tribunal was whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 5,13,140, by rejecting the books of account and estimating the sales at Rs. 53 lakhs was correct or not. The Tribunal had also noticed that the authorities below had rejected the books of account recording cogent reasons and opined as follows:

It is thus seen that the books of account of the assessee were rejected for the reasons that there was low yield as compared to the earlier year and as compared to the other comparable case, i.e., M/s. Diwan Enterprises. Then, the wastage/shortage was higher (1.91 per cent to 1.02 per cent). Further, there was variation in the figure of production supplied by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The figures did not match with the figures of production given by the assessee's auditors in Form No. 3CD. Moreover, there was huge variation in the labels to be pasted on bottles. The explanation offered by the assessee was proved to be false due to the fact that no sales were made in Punjab. Also, the assessee had shown very low withdrawals, ie., Rs. 60,000 including the withdrawals made by his wife as against the monthly withdrawal for the entire year, which came to about Rs. 20,000, vis-a-vis the standard of living and the size of the family. It was in view of this that the assessee had himself agreed to surrender additional income of Rs. 1 lakh on account of unexplained household expenses.

4. The assessee had also challenged the estimation of household expenses at Rs. 2,40,000. The assessee had shown total withdrawal of Rs. 60,000, including the withdrawal made by his wife. As against this, considering the standard of living, the number of children, the educational institutions they attended the number of servants in the house, the membership of various clubs and the assessee's status, the authorities had arrived at a monthly withdrawal of Rs. 20,000 for the entire year. The assessee had himself agreed to surrender the additional amount of Rs. 1 lakh on account of unexplained household expenses. The Tribunal had held that the addition made was justified.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the books of account could not be rejected merely on surmises and conjectures and that the assessee was maintaining proper books of account duly audited etc. Reference was made to Bench decision of this Court in International Forest Co. v. CIT and few other decisions.

6. We are of the view that the decisions cited by the assessee do not apply to the case in hand. For maintaining an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, the assessee has to show a substantial question of law. The books of account of the assessee were rejected by the authorities stating cogent reasons. True, the assessee's case was compared with the case of similar assessee, but that was not the sole basis on which the books of account were rejected. That being the factual position, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.

The appeal lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.