Delhi High Court
Cit vs H.C. Chandna (P.) Ltd. on 9 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2008]299ITR429(DELHI)
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, V.B. Gupta
ORDER
1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 19-2-2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C in IT (SS) Nos. 44,45, 48 and 49 (Delhi)/97 relevant for the block period 1-4-1985 to 22-2-1996.
2. The Tribunal allowed all the four appeals and in respect of one of them(IT(SS) 49 (Delhi)/97), the revenue preferred an appeal under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being ITA No. 178/2004. By an order dated 26-4-2004 the Division Bench came to the conclusion that no substantial question of law had arisen in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
3. Independent of that decision we have examined the facts in the present appeals with regard to the substantial questions of law proposed by the revenue.
4. It appears that a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in the residential and business premises of the assessed on 22-2-1996. Among the documents recovered were a" register with reference to some cancelled and blank bills. On the basis of this, an estimation was made of the income of the assessed for the assessment year 1996-97 (there is no dispute for the prior period).
5. At the time of hearing the appeal before the Tribunal, on the statement of the departmental Representative, the Tribunal required the assessed to produce the original cancelled and blank bills, which was done. After examining these bills and comparing them with the entries in the sale register, it was found that the cancelled and blank bills were a part of the regular bill books maintained by the assessed for its business purposes. All the bill numbers were entered in the sale register and they were tallied on the basis of sales made or as cancelled bills found entered in the sale register serial-wise. On this basis, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no question of any undisclosed income of the assessed based on these cancelled and blank bills.
6. The Tribunal also noted that for the same assessment year 1996-97 the assessed had filed regular returns and these were accepted by the revenue. Copies of the acknowledgement receipt of the return were filed by the learned Counsel for the assessed before the Tribunal.
7. On these facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was noground for making any estimation of the sales by the assessing officer onthe basis of the blank and cancelled bills.
8. We find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and there was no basis for the assessing officer to make any estimation in respect of blank and cancelled bills. The Tribunal was fully justified intaking into consideration the subsequent findings, namely, that a return for the assessment year 1996-97 has been accepted by the revenue.
9. The other question raised by the revenue is with regard to the gross profit rate. This is based on the conclusion arrived at by the Assessing Officer with regard to the estimation of sales on account of blank and cancelled bills. Sine e we have accepted the view taken by the Tribunal that there was no justification for making the estimation, the question of gross profit also does not survive, being consequential.
10. None of the issues raised by the Tribunal call for framing of any substantial question of law.
There is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.