HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 321 of 2014 Date: 04.06.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad.
… Appellant And M/s. Balaji Transport Agency, Hyderabad.
… Respondent This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No. 321 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2013 of the learned Tribunal in relation to the assessment year 2006-07 on the following suggested questions of law.
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was correct in upholding the estimation of income by rejecting the books of account. Whereas, on fact the AO had made specific disallowance only and had not rejected the books of accounts?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was correct in deleting the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained sundry creditors relying on the decision of A.P. High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions vs. CIT when the fact remains that the Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of accounts?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in deleting the additions made by the AO on account of Freight payments relying on the decision of A.P. High Court in the case of M/s. Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT when the fact remains that the assessing officer had not rejected the books of accounts?”
We have heard Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. We find that the learned Tribunal on fact found that the books of accounts of the assessee are not accepted.
However, Mr. Prasad says that there must be an order of rejection of the books of accounts in order to do an estimation of income. We are unable to accept this contention when the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the books of accounts are not properly maintained, as such, are not accepted, separate order is not required. All the authorities below are justified in resorting to the estimation of income in the absence of the books of accounts. When the estimation of income has been made, question of addition does not arise. We do not find anything in this appeal to admit the same.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand dismissed.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 04.06.2014 ES