High Court Held appeal dismissed dismissing ITAT order wherein no substantial question of law arose. Best judgment assessment under Section 144 was based on findings confirmed by tribunals. Assessee failed to prove books of accounts. Court found no merit in appeal.
Appeal dismissed; no costs awarded to either party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 3.9.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Tax Case Appeal No.251 of 2010
M/s.Yule Engineering Corporation, No.3-C, Phase-III, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 600 097. Appellant
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle V, Chennai Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 22.5.2009 made in ITA No.1511/Mds/2008, against the order of the commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-VIII, Chennai in ITA No.39/07-08 dt 03/04/2008 against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-V Chennai-34 dated 4.12.2007 for the assessment year 2005-06.
For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan
Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.V.Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel
J U D G M E N T (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)
The Assessee, M/s.Yule Engineering Corporation has filed the present Tax Case (Appeal) under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order dated 22nd May 2019 of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2005-2006.
was left with no other option to take best judgment Assessment and in the absence of Books of Accounts being produced by the Assessee, the claim of loss was not allowed. The Tribunal also held against the Revenue that the Revenue also could not claim separate additions for Cash Credits under Section 68 of the Act when once the Assessment was undertaken on the best Judgment Assessment under Section 144 of the Act.
Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference:-
"3. After hearing the rival submissions in the light of available material on record and after giving thoughtful consideration thereto, we are of the considered opinion that both Revenue as well as the assessee have to fail in their appeals. When the Assessing Officer has made the best judgment assessment under Section 144 after rejecting (or ignoring) the books of accounts, although audited accounts were produced before him, no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act on account of credits or unsecured loans found recorded in the same very books of account. The Hon'ble Chennai Bench's decision cited supra supports our above finding. When the income is estimated under section 144 of the Act, no separate addition under Section 68 can be validly made when the books of account are rejected/ignored regarding any entry found recorded therein which is deemed to have been ignored/rejected. Therefore, as a necessary corollary of the above premise, no further addition can be made under Section 68 of the Act. In so far as the claim of loss is concerned, in our considered opinion the same cannot be allowed in the absence of any requisite proof thereof. As a result, we dismiss both the appeal as well as the Cross Objection."
Books of Accounts with regard to the loss incurred. The two Appellate Authorities have concurrently approved such assessment order and therefore, disallowed the carried forward loss in the hands of the Assessee. While doing so, the Tribunal also dismissed the Department's Appeal and has held that separate additions under Section 68 of the Act cannot be made since the best Judgment Assessment was made under Section 144 of the Act. The Revenue is not in Appeal before this court.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises requiring consideration under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the rejection of appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hon'ble Chennai Bench's decision cited supraReferred¶19
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Yule Engineering Corporation
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle V, Chennai
Vineet Kothari
C. Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
