Case Law Details
PCIT Vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd. (Gujarat High Court)
Conclusion: Since the findings recorded by ITAT being findings of fact, the appeal could not be entertained in absence of any substantial question of law being involved in the same, therefore, appeal of authority was dismissed.
Held: AO after considering the value of the raw material consumed as per the annual report and the difference between the consumption of raw material as per the return and as per the working submitted in the assessment proceedings as also taking into considering all possible wastage, held that the discrepancy in respect of the two units i.e. Dora Unit and Hoskote Unit was Rs. 4,09,60,104/- which was to be added to the total stock on account of discrepancy. Appellant submitted that the ITAT while dismissing the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 2006-07 had committed an error in observing that the findings recorded in the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2003-04 in the earlier part of the impugned order would apply to the said appeal for the A.Y. 2006-07, however, no such revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2003- 04 was decided by the said common impugned order. The appeal of Revenue for the A.Y. 2003-04 was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the low tax effect vide the ITAT’s order. He further submitted that the ITAT had decided the other two appeals of the assessee for the year 2003-04, which were filed by the assessee on completely different issues. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by ITAT not only suffered from non-application of mind but was also a non-speaking order. It was held that on the basis of the findings recorded by ITAT for the A.Y. 2005-06, in the earlier part of the impugned order, it had dismissed the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y. 2006-07. It had been observed by ITAT that the addition with regard to the value of discrepancy of stock by AO was based on the arithmetic calculation and conversion of stock maintained in Metric tonne into sq. mtrs. and therefore there had to be variation in the working of assessee, which was filed as AO wanted the same in a particular format. It had been further observed by ITAT that AO had not brought out any defects in maintenance of books of accounts and therefore, mere arithmetic calculation made was not suffice for making addition. It was true that the reasons given in impugned order passed by Tribunal were not happily worded and the order could have been passed using better and accurate language, nonetheless the findings recorded by ITAT being findings of fact, the appeal could not be entertained in absence of any substantial question of law being involved in the same. Therefore, appeal of authority was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. The present Tax Appeal filed by the appellant – The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Vadodara-3, under section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) is directed against the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’) IN ITA No. 2283/Ahd/2010 for the A.Y. 2006-07 in case of the respondent – assessee.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
