Chandel Int Udyog vs Commissioner of Trade Tax

Satish Chandra, J.—The present revision has been filed u/s 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the judgment and order dated February 4, 2002, passed in Appeal No. 162/97 for the assessment year 1995-96. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of bricks. It has been alleged that during the assessment year under consideration, the brick-kiln could not run, so only 38,300 (thirty eight thousand three hundred) bricks were sold. The assessee was assailing the compounding scheme and the assessment was passed u/s 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

However, the assessing officer vide its order dated July 23, 1996, estimated the stock of bricks as four lacs bricks. Finally, by adding the sale of 38,300 (thirty eight thousand three hundred) of bricks, he has estimated the total manufactured bricks as 4,38,300 (four lacs thirty eight thousand three hundred), for which, the value was estimated at Rs. 3,17,768 (three lacs seventeen thousand seven hundred sixty eight only). The tax at 10 per cent was imposed, which comes to Rs. 31,776 (thirty one thousand seven hundred seventy six only). However, the first appellate authority has deleted the addition.

Being aggrieved, the Department has filed an appeal before the Tribunal, who upheld the addition made by the assessing officer. Not being satisfied, the assessee has filed the present revision.

With this backdrop, Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, submits that the first appellate authority after examining the entire evidence has deleted the addition.

According to him, there was no manufacturing activity of the bricks, during the assessment year under consideration. Out of closing stock, 3,05,000 bricks were given to M/s. J.D. Bricks Field, who has opted for compounding scheme, which was accepted by the assessing officer. So, there is no occasion to make any addition. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal may kindly be set aside.

On the other hand, Sri Sanjeev Shankhadhar, learned standing counsel, has justified the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

After hearing both the parties, it appears that the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of bricks. The assessee himself has shown the sale of bricks as 38,300 (thirty eight thousand three hundred) during the assessment year under consideration. The assessee himself has assailed the benefit of the compounding scheme, so he has filed an application for compounding along with late fee. By the conduct of the applicant, it appears that there was some activity pertaining to the manufacturing and sale of bricks.

Needless to mention that the Tribunal is the final fact finding authority as per the ratio laid down by the honourable apex court in the case of Kamala Ganapathy Subramaniam and Another Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, .

Moreover, in the instant case, the addition was made on estimated basis which is a question of fact as per ratio laid down in the following cases:

(i) Vijay Kumar Talwar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, ;

(ii) Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Stoneman Marble Industries and Others, ;

(iii) Sudarshan Silks and Sarees Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka, ; and

(iv) Metroark Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta, .

In view of above, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, which is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. No question of law is emerging from the impugned order. Interim order, if any, is vacated.

In the result, the revision is dismissed. No cost.