|COURT:||Allahabad High Court|
|CORAM:||Pankaj Mithal J, Vinod Kumar Misra J|
|SECTION(S):||145, 68, 69C|
|CATCH WORDS:||Bogus purchases, Bogus Sales, unexplained cash credit|
|DATE:||May 4, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||May 13, 2017 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 145: If the AO has not rejected the books of account, it means that the assessee has maintained the books of accounts in accordance with the prescribed standards as per s. 145 of the Act. If so, the AO is not entitled to make any addition on account of sale of goods out of books or for investment in stock out of undisclosed sources|
The High Court had to consider the following two questions of law:
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs.30,73,542/- made on account of sale of rice out of books of Rs.28,76,125/- for investment in stock out of undisclosed sources?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs.27,84,611/- towards investment in stock of wheat purchased out of books?”
HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal:
(i) The dispute is whether the Tribunal is justified in deleting the additions made on account of sale of rice and in the investment in stock of wheat outside the books of accounts.
(ii) On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 27.10.2009 reveals that the assessee has maintained the books of accounts in accordance with the prescribed standard as per Section 145 of ‘the Act’. The account books have not been rejected by the assessing officer.
(iii) In view of the above, the Tribunal formed an opinion where once the account books are expected to be maintained in the prescribed accounting standard, the assessing officer could not have made any additions towards the sale of rice treating it to be outside the books of accounts or towards investing in stock of rice and wheat outside the books of accounts.
(iv) In view of the above, the controversy as raised above in this appeal stands duly covered by the Tribunal and it cannot be said that any investment was done beyond the books of accounts.