High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
Ved Prakash vs. CIT
Section 260A
N.K. Sud & G.S. Singhvi, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 86 of 2002
15th May, 2003
Counsel Appeared :
A.K. Mittal, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
N.K. Sud, J. :
This appeal is directed against an order dt. 28th March, 2001, of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, (for short, “the Tribunal”), wherein certain additions made in the block assessment of the assessee have been upheld.
2. According to the appellant, the following substantial questions of law are involved for adjudication by this Court :
(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order Annexs. P1, P2 and P3 are legally sustainable ?
(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order Annexs. P1, P2 and P3 are legally sustainable inasmuch as the relevant authorities have failed to consider that the assessee had been doing job work and crushing mustard seeds for others for price and seized document contains the details of mustard seeds crushed up to 31st July, 1993, belonging to assessee as well as outsider ?
(c) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order Annexs. P1, P2 and P3 are legally sustainable inasmuch as there is no relevant and cogent evidence to support the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs as alleged net profit on imaginary sales of mustard oil ?
(d) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order Annexs. P1, P2 and P3 are legally sustainable inasmuch as addition of Rs. 13,360 is covered by the undisclosed income of Rs. 15 lakhs surrendered by the assessee under s. 132(4) ?
(e) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order Annexs. P1, P2 and P3 are legally sustainable inasmuch as the deduction of Rs. 60,000 by way of salary paid to partners had not been allowed ?
(f) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order Annexs. P1, P2 and P3 are legally sustainable inasmuch as the relevant authorities have gravely erred in holding the undisclosed addition of Rs.1,43,27,290 from allegedly undisclosed transactions as the same is not reflected either in the assets or investments made by the assessee ?
(g) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order Annexs. P1, P2 and P3 are legally sustainable inasmuch as it is based on conjectures and surmises and presumptions which cannot form the basis for adjudication and thus cannot be sustained at law ?
3. We have perused the order of the Tribunal and are of the view that the findings recorded by it are pure findings of facts and do not give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. During the course of search under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961, certain incriminating material had been recovered from the residential and business premises of the assessee and its partners and the assessment has been framed on the basis of such material. The assessee was also found to have purchased substantial quantity of Sarson outside the books of account. Since the books of account maintained by the assessee were not reliable, the assessment had to be made in the light of the material recovered during the search. In this process, some element of estimate was unavoidable. In the appellate jurisdiction under s. 260A of the Act, this Court normally does not interfere by substituting its own estimate in place of the one of the Tribunal unless it is shown that the estimate of the Tribunal could not possibly be reached.
In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.
[Citation : 265 ITR 642]
