A.A. Steel vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri N.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned sanding counsel for the respondent.

This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 04.01.2006 in Second Appeal No.273 of 2002, year 2000-2001 passed by the Member, Commercial Tribunal, Bench-II, Allahabad. By the impugned order, the Tribunal partly allowed the second appeal of the applicant and reduced liability to tax to Rs.25,000/- as against the liability of tax determined by Assessing Authority at Rs.1,50,000/-.

Perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, shows that a survey on 06.06.2000 was conducted in the business premises of the applicant in which no books of accounts were found.

Entries of goods manufactured on 10.04.2000 (250 Kg.), 13.05.2000 (150 Kg.) and 18.05.2001 (410 Kg.) were not found entered in the books of accounts kept by the applicant.

On the basis of the aforesaid main grounds, the books of accounts of the assessee were rejected and best judgment assessment was made. The rejection of books of accounts and estimation of turnover under the facts and circumstances of the case, has not been disputed by the applicant before this court.

Perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal further shows that in the preceding and subsequent years also, number of discrepancies were found and books of accounts were rejected and best judgment assessment was made.

The Tribunal itself has taken a lenient view to reduce the evaded turnover from Rs.15 lacs to Rs.2,50,000/-, and thus, determined liability to tax of the applicant to Rs.25,000/- only. Findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact based on consideration of relevant materials on record. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.

In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision. Consequently, revisions fails and is hereby dismissed.