TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany engaged in the business of printing magazines and books. Its Unit No. I which is a printing press was set off in 1972 in Sahibabad. This Unit is engaged in cover printing of magazines as also double cover printing for inside pages. It uses 14 offset machines. 4. Unit No. II was established in the assessment year 1989-90 at Sahibabad but is engaged only in the binding of the magazines and books. Unit No. III was set up in assessment year 1991-92 in Faridabad. This unit is a modern printing machine and its capacity is very high. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80-I of the Act on its Unit Nos. II and III. However, the Assessing Officer held that the deduction under section 80-I can be worked out on the basis of accounts furnished by the assessee. The allocation of expenses inter se amongst the different units was arbitrary and had no rational basis. According to him, the expenses in Unit No. I have been inflated whereas the profits in Units II and III have been inflated. While coming to this conclusion, the Assessing Officer made the following observations:- (i) There is no consumption of paper in Unit No. in although this unit is also engaged in printing as Uni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing Officer, we find that Unit No. I had done printing of magazines which are supplied with paper. Unit No. III has done printing on the papers supplied by the publishers and accordingly there is no consumption of paper in Unit No. III. The nature of printing in both the units are different. Unit No. I has done printing on the paper purchased by the assessee whereas the Unit No. III has done only job work of printing and not purchased any paper. The paper was supplied by the other company. It was under these circumstances that there was no consumption of paper in Unit No. III whereas there was consumption of paper in Unit No. I. Had the Assessing Officer examined this point from the documents furnished by the assessee, perhaps this confusion would have not arisen. 9. The second reason given by the Assessing Officer in denying the claim of the assessee was disproportionate expenditure of ink in different units. The Assessing Officer has pointed out that in Unit No. I, the consumption of ink, was very high whereas in Unit No. III, the consumption of ink was much less. We find that Unit No. I had 14 machines whereas Unit No. III had only one machine. As mentioned earlier, Un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rational basis. We do not find any infirmity in his findings and while upholding the same, we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the revenue. 11. We also find that the revenue has challenged the directions of the CIT(A) for allowing deduction under section 80-I of the Act before set off the brought forward losses. But from the order of the CIT(A), it is clear that the position is otherwise. In the last para of his order, the CIT(A) has observed that as per section 80(1)(6), if loss of earlier years remain to be set off, the Assessing Officer will adjust the same from the profit of the years. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel has stated that there was no loss brought forward from earlier years. For this purpose, the ld. counsel also filed the assessment order for 1992-93 according to which the assessed income came to Rs. 22.87 lakhs. The perusal of this order indicates that except minor disallowances under rule 6D, prior period expenses, disallowance under rule 6B, the income declared by the assessee has been accepted. We, therefore, feel that this ground of appeal raised by the revenue is merely academic and infructuous. We, therefore, dismiss this ground of appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... more deduction. Assessing Officer has also noticed that in Unit No. I there was an amount of Rs. 2,36,62,145 debited on account of paper while no amount was shown under the head of paper in the Unit No. III though this unit is also engaged in printing. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 76,80,945 was shown under the head 'process of ink' in Unit No. I but no such expenses was shown in Unit No. III. Again an another amount of Rs. 48,26,988 was shown under the head ink in Unit No. I and only an amount of Rs. 1,04,113 was shown under this head in Unit No. III. As such, the total expenses under the head ink was shown at Rs. 1,23,69,822 in Unit No. I as against a sum of Rs. 1,04,113/ shown in Unit No. III. The assessee was asked to " explain these discrepancies and the assessee filed a revised chart showing slight variation in income and loss in all the 3 units. The Assessing Officer has also noticed that other item such as subscription deposit service expenses amounting to Rs. 17,32,165 is shown in Unit No. I but no corresponding expenses were shown in Unit No. III. With regard to this subscription deposit service expenses, Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not brought....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the correct profit of these 3 units cannot be worked out separately in the assessee's case, therefore, deduction under section 80-I cannot be worked out on the basis of accounts furnished by the assessee. He further opined that the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 80-I(6) of the Act in respect of two units for which the deduction under section 80-I was claimed. In remaining paragraphs the Assessing Officer has dealt with an issue of set-off of brought forward losses while computing deduction under section 80-I of the Act. Since, I do not have any difference of opinion on these points with my learned brother, I express my concurrence with his view. 6. Against the main issue of disallowance of deduction under section 80-I of the Act, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee after giving specific finding that the assessee has rightly booked higher expenses in Unit No. I without dealing with the specific reasons given by the Assessing Officer on inflated expenses booked in Unit No. I under the head 'Process of ink, and ink and subscription deposit service scheme and other miscellaneous expenses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nit No. I, the binding was done by itself by its own machines. 8. The learned DR further invited our attention to the comparative chart expenses booked under different units appearing at page 22 of the compilation of the assessee, with a submission that in each and every head, assessee has booked higher expenses in Unit No. I because the Unit No. I is no longer eligible for deduction under section 80-I of the Act. Since the defects in accounts raised by the learned Assessing Officer were not properly met by the learned CIT(A) in his order, the finding of the Assessing Officer with regard to rejection of books of account in this regard, deserves to be sustained. However, during the course of hearing, the learned DR himself has agreed that the entire claim of deduction under section 80-I cannot be rejected. The Assessing Officer rather should have reallocated the proper expenses under different units in order to determine the correct deduction under section 80-I of the Act. 9. The Learned counsel for the assessee besides relying upon the order of CIT(A) submitted that it has booked the actual expenses under different units with regard to subscription deposit scheme. The learned cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;s order, I find that the Assessing Officer has taken a note of all these facts and has observed that the assessee has booked the expenses on account of paper at Rs. 2,36,62,145 and if this cost of paper is reduced from total receipt, the actual receipt in Unit No. I comes to Rs. 1,25,64,468 against which assessee has shown an expenditure of more than Rs. 1,86,10,519. These observations of Assessing Officer were not dealt with by the CIT(A) in his order or by the learned Accountant Member. If the actual receipt of all units are taken into account, one would find that the actual "receipt from individual unit are almost similar subject to variation of few lakhs but the expenses booked in Unit No. I are more than 10 times of the expenses booked in other independent units as in Unit Nos. II and III expenses are booked at Rs. 14,01,967 and Rs. 6,05,235 respectively as evident from the comparative chart appearing in assessment order. 11. It was also observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has booked the expenses under the head 'Process of ink' at Rs. 76,80,945 and under the head of Ink at Rs. 46,88,877 totalling to Rs. 1,23,69,822 against the total expenses under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it was closed or still continued? It is also not evident from the record that how much amount was collected by the assessee under this scheme and in which year and whether this amount was solely used in Unit No. I or in setting up of Unit Nos. II and III? It was also not explained either before the lower authorities or before the Tribunal that what are these expenses. It is also not clear from the record, whether the assessee was a publisher or was doing only printing work and what are these expenses booked under Unit No. I. While rejecting these details of expenses, Assessing Officer has made the observation that the proportionate expenses under the head subscription deposit scheme should have been booked in other units also. But while accepting the claim of the assessee, CIT(A) did not spell out the nature of scheme and the reasons why the entire expenses under this head was booked only in Unit No. I. In the absence of complete details, the stand of the assessee cannot be accepted that these expenses only pertain to Unit No. I. In these circumstances, I am of the view that this needs a proper verification. 14. The other objection of the Assessing Officer was with regard to sala....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile of Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issue of deduction under section 80-I in terms indicated above, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 15. In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Per D.R. Singh, Judicial Member. 1. In terms of section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act the following two questions were referred to the Hon'ble President of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on account of difference of opinion between the two Members of the Bench:- "1. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case Id. Accountant Member is right in upholding the order of ld. CIT(A) in the two assessment years under consideration. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. Judicial Member is correct in restoring the file to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication of the issue of deduction under section 80-I in terms indicated in his proposed order." 2. Now, in view of the order dated 21-3-2006 passed by the Hon'ble President, Shri Vimal Gandhi, as Third Member concurring with the view taken by the learned Accountant Member, wherein he confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A), as per ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... II and III amounting to Rs. 5,43,142 and Rs. 4,81,949 respectively in the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. Under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act a deduction of 20% of income derived by an industrial undertaking is allowed. It is an agreed case that no deduction under the above section is permissible on income of Unit No. I. Income of other two units is entitled to deduction. 5. In the course of assessment of the assessee and on examination of its account, the Assessing Officer held the view that expenses in Unit No. I were inflated and heavy losses were shown to reduce its income. This was done in order to increase profits of Unit Nos. II and III and forgetting excessive deduction. In assessment order for the assessment year 1993-94 the Assessing Officer noted that position of total receipt, total expenses, income and losses of three units was as under:- Total receipts Total expenditure Income Loss Unit I 3,62,26,613 4,98,29,500 -- 1,36,02,887 Unit II 1,29,03,964 45,47,022 83,58,942 - Unit III 1,28,42,491 51,48,007 76,94,484 - 6. The Assessing Officer has further observed that from detail of expenses filed for three units, it is seen that Unit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laries and production charges 38,76,712 4,58,668 3,41,208 Paper 2,36,62,145 - - Process of Ink 76,80,945 - - Motor Vehicle Exp. 2,55,870 22,845 41,804 Ink 46,88,877 - 2,22,223 Binding material 3,59,992 9,20,457 - 9. The Assessing Officer found that total receipt of Unit No I Rs. 3,63,26,613 included cost of paper supplied by the publisher and therefore, this amount was to be deducted from total receipt of the unit, when so done, actual receipt of Unit Nos. I, II and III and salaries claimed were as under:- Units I II III Work done 1,25,64,468 1,29,05,964 1,28,42,491 Salaries and production expenses 38,76,712 4,58,665 3,41,209 10. From the above chart the Assessing Officer tried to prove that assessee claimed disproportionate salaries in Unit No. I as against work done for Rs. 1.25 crores. The assessee claimed expenses only under one head "Ink" Rs. 1,23,69,822 which would leave surplus of only Rs. 1,94,646 out of receipt yet assessee had claimed expenses of Rs. 38.76 lakhs under the head 'Salaries', Rs. 17.32 lakhs under subscription Deposit Service Scheme, Rs. 9.13 lakhs on account of roller and plates, Rs. 9.89 lakhs on account of elect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as under:- Total receipts Total expenditure Income Loss Unit I 5,59,05,188 5,92,64,478 - 33,59,290 Unit II 53,29,785 21,89,989 31,39,796 - Unit III 1,16,81,091 48,40,603 68,40,488 - 13. The assessee impugned above order in appeal before the CIT(A). The controversy in assessment year 1993-94 was decided by the learned CIT(A) vide its order dated 8-4-1997 in ITA No. 146/96/97. The ld. CIT(A) noted the kind of business carried on by the assessee. He further noted the year in which three units were set up by the assessee at 3 different places and type of machinery employed by three units. The learned CIT(A) also noted detail of various expenses claimed by the assessee in three units relating to consumption of paper, consumption of ink, salary and production charges and other items of expenses like one relating to subscription amounting to Rs. 17,32,165. 14. The assessee during the course of hearing of the appeal explained to CIT(A) about number and type of machines employed and date of commencement of business at each of the unit. It was explained that printing was done by Unit No. III as per paper supplied by the publisher and, therefore, no consumption o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, explained before the learned CIT(A) that expenditure in different units were properly charged and not inflated or deflated as observed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 18. All the above claims are fully noted and considered by the learned CIT(A) at pages 3 and 4 of the order. The learned CIT(A) thereafter considered provisions of section 80-I of IT Act including sub-sections (1), (2) and (9) of the section. He analyzed above provisions in the light of the decision of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Punjab Concast Steels Ltd., as is evident from pages 6 and 7 of CIT (Appeals)'s order. The ld. CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee with the following observations:- "5. I have duly considered the facts of the case. I find that the basis on which deduction under section 80-I has been denied in this case does not hold good. Unit No. III has printed on paper supplied by Unit No. I hence, there was no question of any consumption of paper in Unit No. III. Hence, there was no expenditure. Unit No. I has done printing work on paper purchased for itself as well as for purchase of paper for Unit No. III. Unit No. II is only doing binding job and hence it has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Officer, noted details of the expenses debited under different heads and held that the facts and the circumstances before him were similar to assessment year 1993-94. He followed and applied order of CIT(A) for assessment year 1993-94 and directed that the relief be allowed to the assessee. 20. The Revenue being aggrieved challenged aforesaid orders of CIT(A) in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal raising the ground that direction of CIT(A) to allow deduction under section 80-I were erroneous. 21. Both the appeals of the Revenue were heard by ITAT, 'C Bench, New Delhi. The learned Accountant Member wrote and proposed order on behalf of the Bench. In the above proposed order, the learned Accountant Member noted type of machines employed by different units in different years at Sahibabad and Faridabad. He also noted the objection of Assessing Officer relating to claim of expenses under the head "Ink", salary and production charges and expenses relating to subscription deposit service. The learned Accountant Member further considered the analyses carried by learned CIT(A) of various expenses and their allocation to units which was held to be rational and justified. The lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in 1972 and, therefore, workers in that unit were quite senior. Learned Accountant Member further noted that there was 14 machines in Unit No. I and, therefore, more workers were employed in that unit than in Unit No. III which had only one machine. Looking to this fact it was clear that expenditure on salaries and production has to be more in Unit No. I as compared to Unit No. III. (d) The learned Accountant Member also examined question of claim of expenditure on subscription deposits in Unit No. I. He noted that Scheme was invoked by Unit No. I in 1972. Unit Nos. II and in had come into existence in 1989 and 1991 respectively. Thus, the question of debiting Subscription Deposit Scheme expenses in Unit Nos. II and III did not arise. He further noted that assessee has maintained books of account separately for each unit. The Assessing Officer did not find any fault in the books. In these circumstances the Assessing Officer could not impose his own estimate in allocating expenses to various units. The learned Accountant Member further observed that learned CIT(A) appreciated the facts of the case and held that claim of deduction by the assessee was made on a rational basis. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Unit No. I assessee has booked various expenses under different heads at more than Rs. 1,86,10,514 worked out on the basis of chart given in the assessment order as no detail of complete expenses are furnished by the assessee. The major expenses were shown under the head 'Subscription deposit scheme, Paper and Ink'. While dealing with the expenses booked on account of paper, my learned brother has observed in his order that in Unit No. I, the paper was purchased by the assessee whereas in Unit No. III only job work of printing was done and the paper was supplied by the publisher. He further observed that had the Assessing Officer examined this point from the documents furnished by the assessee, perhaps this confusion would not have arisen. On perusal of Assessing Officer's order, I find that the Assessing Officer has taken a note of all these facts and has observed that the assessee has booked the expenses on account of paper at Rs. 2,36,62,145 and if this cost of paper is reduced from total receipt, the actual receipt in Unit No. I comes to Rs. 1,25,64,468 against which assessee has shown an expenditure of more than Rs. 1,86,10,519. These observations of Assessing Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the view of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has made a disproportionate allocation of expenses under the head of ink. 13. With regard to subscription deposit scheme, assessee has booked an expense of Rs. 17,32,165 in Unit No. I whereas no expenses under this head are booked in Unit Nos. II and III. The assessee's contention before the Assessing Officer are that the scheme was launched in 1972 when Unit No. I was established and whatever collection was made, it was used in Unit No. I as such these expenses are booked in Unit No. I, but neither before the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A), the details of the scheme were furnished by the assessee. It is not evident from the record that what was the scheme? Whether it was launched in 1972 or thereafter, and whether it was closed or still continued? It is also not evident from the record that how much amount was collected by the assessee under this scheme and in which year and whether this amount was solely used in Unit No. I or in setting up of Unit Nos. II and III? It was also not explained either before the lower authorities or before the Tribunal that what are these expenses. It is also not clear from the record, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has brought the material on record. I am also unable to understand why the assessee was running the Unit No. I continuously when it has shown a loss of Rs. 1,33,62,190 in assessment year 1993-94 and Rs. 33,59,290 in assessment year 1994-95. All these facts lead me to take a view that Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the assessee has made disproportionate allocation of expenses under different units in order to claim higher depreciation in new units i.e., Unit Nos. II and III. I, therefore, hold that the provisions of section 80-I(9) are attracted and the Assessing Officer is directed to work out true expenses of different units after making a detailed enquiry and investigation and thereafter to recompute the deduction under section 80-I. Accordingly the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue of deduction under section 80-I in terms indicated above, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee." Emphasis supplied 23. The learned Judicial Member thereafter wrote to the Accountant Member letter dated 3rd June, 2003 as under:- "Dated 3rd June, 2003 Re: Appeal Nos. 3900 and 4517/DELHI/97 in the case of DCIT v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whether the assessee in the two assessment years under consideration claimed expenses in Unit No. I which in fact related to business carried on by Unit Nos. II and III in order to claim higher and excessive deductions under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. This according to the revenue was done as no deduction was permissible on income derived by Unit No. I and the same was permissible on income derived by Unit Nos. II and III. Relevant figures of deduction claimed are noted in the earlier part of this order. Extract of observations of Assessing Officer and other authorities have also been reproduced. The circumstances which led the Assessing Officer to hold that expenses of Unit No. I were artificially inflated (enhanced) and that of Unit Nos. II and III deflated (reduced); a view with which learned CIT(A) and Accountant Member (in his proposed order) did not agree, but learned Judicial Member accepted are also given below. 26. The first object raised by the Assessing Officer is that expenses under the head "Ink" in Unit No. I is-excessive when compared with Unit No. III. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee had claimed Rs. 76,80,945 under the head "Process of Ink" and R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,490.00 Total 6,18,49,083.00 28. Above amount of Rs. 6,18,49,083 is duly shown on the credit side under the head "Sales" in the profit and loss account of the relevant period. Copies of above entries in the books of account were also verified by the ld. Departmental Representative. It is settled law that books of account are part of a record of assessment and can be examined by all facts finding authority including the Appellate Tribunal. Entries in the books of account leave no amount of doubt that in Unit No. I assessee received Rs. 76,80,945 on account of process of ink. The aforesaid amount was credited in the relevant account and could not be taken as part of expenses. The Assessing Officer's findings which are approved by the ld. Judicial Member are contrary to the material on record and are erroneous. It has therefore to be held that the assessee only claimed Rs. 48,26,988 on account of consumption of Ink and not Rs. 1,23,69,822 as made out in the assessment order. On the other hand, the learned CIT(A) recorded a factually correct finding. I see no justification for the observations that no explanation was furnished by the assessee during the hearing o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and was carrying printing work on the paper supplied by the customer. It was only carrying job work whereas Unit No. I was buying paper from the Market. The aforesaid claim was duly supported by entries in the books of account and was accepted by the learned CIT(A). It has also been accepted by the learned Accountant Member in the proposed order. The learned Judicial Member however in the proposed order observed that "work done" by the assessee in Unit No. I was for Rs. 1,25,64,468 against which Unit No. I claimed expenses of Rs. 1,86,10,509. Thus expenses claimed were much more than receipts. The learned Judicial Member further observed that there may be variation of few lakhs in actual receipts of Units but expenses booked should correlate with receipt. But in Unit No. I expenses are more than 10 times of expenses booked in other units. He has further observed. "I am unable to understand why the assessee was running Unit No. I continuously when it had shown loss in the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95". This along with other facts led him to take a view that Assessing Officer was justified in holding that assessee had made disproportionate allocation of expenses under differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of purchase of these magazines from associated concern is debited in Unit No. I". The Assessing Officer further observed, "it cannot be assessee's case that funds so generated by the deposit received is utilized only for Unit No. I. In fact all new investments have been made in Unit Nos. II and III". The Assessing Officer accordingly did not accept as correct the debit of entire expenditure of scheme in Unit No. I. As against the above the ld. Judicial Member had recorded, 'neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT(A) the detail of the Scheme were furnished by the assessee. It is not evident from record what was the Scheme? Whether it was launched in 1972 or thereafter and whether it was closed or still continued.' The other observations of the learned Judicial Member in the proposed order have been separately noted. He has concluded that while accepting the claim of the assessee the learned CIT(A) did not spell out nature of the scheme and the reasons why the entire expenses under this head were booked only in Unit No. I. In his view this aspect needs proper verification. 33. From the observations of the Assessing Officer it is clear that he had taken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se has been made by the Assessing Officer? Only on doubt and surmises case was made and now being recommended Lo Assessing Officer for further examination. However, the finding of Assessing Officer was challenged by the assessee and learned CIT(A) accepted and recorded that the assessee used its own profit for investment in Unit Nos. II and in as those units were set up much after the launching of the scheme. It is clear from record that books are supplied free of cost to the subscriber who made deposit of requisite amount under the scheme. Expenditure claimed by Unit No. I pertain to supply of books and magazines free of cost. The scheme was launched by Unit No. I. The deposits were received by the said unit and, therefore, expenditure are debited in account of the said unit. There is no dispute on above facts. The objection of the Assessing Officer is uncalled for as there is no material on record to show that deposits of scheme were utilized as investments in Unit Nos. II and in. In fact, Assessing Officer felt short of recording a specific finding to the above effect. In the assessment order he has merely observed that no doubt new investments were made in Unit Nos. II and III....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the claim of the assessee. The ld. Judicial Member therefore agreed with approach of the Assessing Officer except computation of the deduction. 38. In my considered view, there is no confusion on facts involved in the case. The assessee is carrying on printing work in Unit No. I. It has debited binding expenses in said unit also. It is nobody's case that after printing, binding work was not carried by Unit No. I. No investigations on above line were carried. The objection is why binding charges in Unit No. I when Unit No. II has e binding machines. However, objection is raised without any justification. Binding was done in Unit No. I and expenses claimed duly supported by audited books of account. The expenses claimed on binding in Unit No. I are not held to be fictitious. Likewise Unit No. III admittedly carried printing work without binding and without debiting binding expenses. The Assessing Officer placed no material on record to controvert the claim of the assessee. It is not clear as to on what material doubts has been raised in the proposed order by learned Judicial Member even on points accepted and not challenged by the Assessing Officer. Even the manner of carrying o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rivy Council had observed that Assessing authority must make what he believes to be a fair estimate of proper figure of assessment and that assessment should not be dishonestly, vindictively or capriciously made. It should also not be arbitrary. 41. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of State ofKeralav. C. Velukutty [1966] 60 ITR 239 after referring to the above decision of Privy Council observed as under: "Judgment is a faculty to decide matters with wisdom truly and legally. Judgment does not depend upon the arbitrary caprice of a Judge, but on settled and invariable principles of justice. Though there is an element of guess-work in a best judgment assessment, it should not be a wild one, but should have a reasonable nexus to the available material and the circumstances of each case." 42. The facts with reference to which the aforesaid observations were made by their Lordships are noted at page 244/245 of the report and are as under: "Can it be said that in the instant case the impugned assessment satisfied the said tests? From the discovery of secret accounts in the head office, it does not necessarily follow that a corresponding set of secret accounts were maint....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h deduction was permissible and expenses in aforesaid Unit No. I were much higher than this in the other two units. It was probable that more expenses were claimed in Unit No. I and some of the expenses of Unit Nos. II and III were diverted and claimed in Unit No. I. But no presumption under the law could be raised that expenses were so diverted. The assessee has produced accounts with details and, therefore, correct position "could have been ascertained from the material statement of relevant persons including management and staff of the assessee could have been examined." But without any investigation and without collecting any material an arbitrary assessment by holding that expenses in Unit No. I should be proportionate to those in Unit Nos. II and III was made. Assessment based on such inference has to be held as arbitrary. 44. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in the above case also refused to give another opportunity to the Department to make out a case by remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer There is therefore no justification for making a thorough investigation. 45. In the case of State of Orissa v. Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo [1970] 76 ITR 690 (SC) Agricultural....