TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (3) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment year 1983-84: "1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 50,000 in the assessment year 1983-84 partly on the basis of irrelevant material and on the basis of no material ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the past history of the assessee ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding the view that the provisions of section 145(2) are applicable in the case of the assessee ?" Assessment year 1984-85: "1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 40,000 in the assessment year 1984-85 partly on the basis of irrelevant material and on the basis of no material ?....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e defects pointed out in the order for the assessment year 1982-83. After recording certain examples, the Income-tax Officer was of the view that the figures of consumption and production have been incorporated on assumption basis and thus the authenticity of the figures shown in the stock register maintained by the assessee was doubted. It was also found that the water content which was 8.3% in the month of April stood reduced to 7.8% during the months of May, June and July and further went down to 7.5% in the month of August and again increased to 8.1% and 8.6% in the month of September and October respectively and further went up to 9% in the month of November. The Income-tax Officer was not satisfied with the variation with regard to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Thereafter, it was examined as to what extent the addition should be made and, on the basis of the past history of the assessee's case as well as gross profit shown in the comparable case, the additions came to Rs. 50,000 in the assessment year 1983-84 and Rs. 40,000 in the assessment year 1984-85. An application for reviewing the order of the Tribunal was also submitted in which it was submitted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) opined that the facts of the assessee's case are different from the facts of the case of Arjun Soap Factory and though small additions were made in the gross profit rate declared by the assessee and the Tribunal was of the opinion that the adjusted gross profit rate disclosed by the assessee in the ear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer but the method employed is such that, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the income cannot properly be deduced therefrom, then the computation shall be made upon such basis and in such manner as the Assessing Officer may determine : Provided further that where no method of accounting is regularly employed by the assessee, any income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the previous year in which such interest is due to the assessee: Provided also that nothing contained in this subsection shall preclude an assessee from being charged to income-tax in respect of any interest on securities received by him in a previous year if such interest had not been charged to income-tax for any earli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacturing laundry soap whereas the facts of the petitioner's case were altogether different and that the additions in the year 1982-83 were deleted and, therefore, there was no justification to sustain the addition to the extent of Rs. 50,000 and 40,000, respectively, for the assessment year, 1983-84 and 1984-85. Where the assessee has maintained books of account in the regular course of his business and the genuineness of the entries in such books is not challenged, then the same can be prima facie considered to be correct in view of the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act. But, where the genuineness and regularity of the books of account is challenged then the provisions of section 145(2) of the Act could be invoked. In the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l in its order, have not been challenged to be incorrect and once it is found that the provisions of section 145(2) are applicable, then the question with regard to the additions to be made for the purpose of best judgment assessment has to be decided by the taxing authorities looking to the facts and circumstances of each case. The submission of Mr. Kasliwal is that the Tribunal was persuaded in its judgment by the facts in the case of Arjun Soap Factory for invoking the provisions of section 145(2) is not correct. The provisions of section 145(2) were invoked by the Tribunal on the basis of the various defects in the maintenance of the stock register and not on account of the case of Arjun Soap Factory which has subsequently been referred....