TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vity) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : "i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the rejection of the accounts by the Assessing Officer was not proper ? ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by holding peak credit adopted was the only method to find out the cash balances especially when the Assessing Officer has rejected the books of accounts ? iii. Whether the finding of the Tribunal is proper especially when the books of accounts were rejected due to negative balances, inflation of expenses, unproved purchase, unidentified trade credit and due to public....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eric powder. They filed the return of income for the relevant assessment year namely 2009-10 on 30.9.2009 admitting a total income of Rs. 12,31,580/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, a notice was issued to the assessee and details were called for. The books of accounts, which were summoned, were produced before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer found from the cash book that the assessee has negative cash balance in the cash book on various dates after 01.12.2008. After noting the other details, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee was not able to give proper clarification or explanation regarding unaccounted cash inserted in the books of accounts, but merely stated that the assessee had withdrawn the cash f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... After carefully going through the impugned order as well as the order passed by the CIT(A), we find that the matter is entirely factual and the grounds, which have been raised before us, are all factual grounds and not questions of law much less substantial questions of law. We say so taking note of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraphs 5, 9, 13, 17 and 20. 8. By way of illustration, we refer to the findings rendered by the Tribunal with regard to enhancement of turnover and estimating profit of the assessee. 9. The Revenue contended before the Tribunal that the Assessing Officer, by comparing the packing material consumed by the assessee vis-a-vis the actual quantity of turmeric powder sold, estimated the gross profit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he purpose of estimating the probable sales and when the remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer by the CIT(A), in the report dated 09.12.2012, the Assessing Officer confirmed that there was an error in the probable sales calculated in the assessment order. The assessee stated that the total quantity of the sales was 1,25,500 Kgs. However, the Assessing Officer added one more '0' and treated the same as 12,55,000 Kgs. This mistake was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the remand report and on account of such mistake, the figures, which got inflated, had to be necessarily reduced. The Assessing Officer reiterated the stand taken by them before the CIT(A) stating that there were two types of packing materials. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g material and another is primary packing material. The cost of packing material ranged from Rs. 72/- to Rs. 180/- per Kg whereas the average sale price of the turmeric powder is Rs. 48/- per Kg. Therefore, the CIT (Appeals) came to a conclusion that no prudent businessman would add weight to packing material when the contents are of lesser value. The ClT (Appeals) further found that there is an arithmetical error in computing the packing material. The Assessing Officer has committed mistake by himself adding one more '0'. In fact, the actual sale of turmeric powder was 1,25,500 Kgs. However, the Assessing Officer has taken the same as 12,55,000 Kgs. The Assessing Officer confirmed the arithmetical mistake made by him, in the remand....