1999 (6) TMI 50 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds AO's Use of Section 145(1) Proviso for Manufacturing Yield

Jagan Nath Gurbachan Singh. Versus Income-Tax Officer.

Jagan Nath Gurbachan Singh. Versus Income-Tax Officer. - TTJ 073, 878, Issues Involved:1. Application of proviso to Section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Reasonableness of yield percentage in the processing and ginning of cotton.Detailed Analysis:1. Application of Proviso to Section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The primary issue revolves around whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in invoking the proviso to Section 145(1) due to the assessee showing low yield in the manufacturing process. The assessee's argument was that the stock registers maintained were accurate and reflected the daily position of stocks, including the ginned cotton and resultant by-products. They contended that no defects were pointed out in the books of accounts, thus the proviso to Section 145(1) should not apply. The counsel cited various judgments, including Tara Singh & Co. vs. CIT and Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills vs. CIT, to support their stance that the AO must act judicially and not arbitrarily when invoking this proviso.The Departmental Representative argued that the absence of proper stock registers and lower yield compared to previous years were sufficient grounds for applying a flat rate under the proviso to Section 145(1). They relied on Punjab Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and other judgments to support their claim that the AO has the power to reject books of accounts if they are found to be unreliable or incomplete.The Tribunal emphasized that Sections 143(3) and 145 must be read harmoniously. The AO has the power under Section 143(3) to assess income based on evidence produced by the assessee and gathered by the AO. This power includes rejecting books of accounts if they are found to be false or incomplete, as supported by the Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT judgment. The Tribunal concluded that the AO could make additions to income regarding unexplained low yield under Section 143(3).2. Reasonableness of Yield Percentage in Processing and Ginning of Cotton:The second issue dealt with determining a reasonable yield percentage for cotton processing. The Tribunal discussed various factors affecting yield, including the type of ginning process (sawgin vs. roller ginning), seasonal variations, and the quality of raw cotton. The assessee's counsel argued that yield percentages could vary significantly due to these factors and that there was no uniform standard applied by the taxation authorities.The Departmental Representative provided data from various sources, including the Cotton Corporation of India and Markfed, to show yield percentages in different regions and years. The Tribunal noted that yield percentages varied from season to season and area to area, making it challenging to establish a uniform standard.The Tribunal proposed a three-step process for investigating yield percentages:1. Assessee's Own History: This method was deemed unscientific due to year-to-year variations in yield.2. Comparable Cases: The lack of consistent and complete data from the Department ruled out this method.3. Expert Opinion or Government Bodies: The Tribunal favored using yield percentages from the Cotton Corporation of India and Markfed as these organizations maintain detailed and scientifically analyzed records.The Tribunal concluded that the yield percentage determined by the Cotton Corporation of India should be used as the basis for assessing reasonableness. If the yield shown by the assessee is at par or higher than this benchmark, the AO should accept it. If the yield is lower, the onus is on the assessee to provide satisfactory and documented explanations for the deviation.The Tribunal directed that the AO should accept the yield percentage wherever it matches or exceeds the benchmark set by the Cotton Corporation of India and dispose of the appeals accordingly.