(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA)
1. The Revenue has preferred this Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for sake of brevity) to challenge the order dated 18.05.2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' in IT (SS) No.278/Ahd/2003 by proposing the following two questions formulated in the memorandum of appeal as substantial questions arising in the appeal.
"[A] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition made on account of sale of milk?
[B] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee, where the determination of quantity of sale of milk and sale price of milk per buffalo contemplated by the assessing officer was not disputed by the assessee as well as at the time of assessment proceedings?"
2. We have heard learned counsel Mrs. Mauna Bhatt for learned senior counsel Mr. M. R. Bhatt for the appellant. We have gone through the impugned order and have considered the relevant facts on record.
3. Necessary facts involved in the appeal with reference to which the proposed questions of law are formulated are that the assessee and his group were jointly engaged in the business of dairy farming. An action of search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out at various places against the assessee. On the basis of information gathered during the search, the Assessing Officer in his Assessment Order calculated total undisclosed income from dairy milk business for the block period between 1st April 1991 and 9th January 2001 at Rs.1, 30, 19,280/-. The Assessing Officer worked out the yield of milk on the basis of 34 buffaloes and the selling price of milk per liter.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) while dealing with the issue in the appeal of the assessee deleted the said income estimated by the Assessing Officer, as according to him the Assessing Officer had made the addition on the basis of a register containing details of sale of milk which was seized from one Mohammad Aliji Nandoliya who was a different person. The Appellate Commissioner was of the further view that no material evidence whatsoever was found which could establish that any unaccounted income from sale of milk had been earned by the assessee and the Assessing Officer had mechanically applied the material found in case of another person.
4.1 The findings recored by the Appellate Commissioner came to be confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal recorded its confirming findings as under:
"After going through the case records it is seen that the assessee has declared the cost of purchase of buffaloes the value of each buffaloes at Rs.29,300/- without suggest that the cost of each buffalo is at Rs.29,300/-. The assessee has declared 45 buffaloes in his balance sheet enclosed with the regular return on income. The addition made by the A.O. to the undisclosed income computed by him for the block period is certainly superfluous an without any basis.
5. In the above conspectus of the matter, it is seen that the entire issue of income from the sale of milk, the amount in respect of which was sought to be added by the Assessing Officer as undisclosed income of the assessee is in the realm of estimation of figures and appreciation of facts. The number of buffaloes the assessee had and the per liter price of the milk etc. were all the questions of fact which were considered by the Income Tax Authorities and ultimately by the Tribunal culminating into the impugned order. The concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the tribunal. The findings are reasonable and based on the material before the Tribunal and no perversity could be demonstrated therein.
6. In M. Janardhana Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [ AIR 2005 SC 1309] and in Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi [2011 (1) SCC 673], the Supreme Court has observed that when the findings arrived at by the Income Tax Tribunal are findings of facts, the High Court would not be justified in interfering in Appeal. No substantial question arises for consideration in the aforesaid facts and circumstances.
7. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.
[V.
M. SAHAI, J.] [N.
V. ANJARIA, J.] Amit Top