ITA No. 139 of 2000 [1] IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 139 of 2000 Date of decision: 28.1.2020 Smt. Mohinder Kaur Appellant v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing Counsel and Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel for respondents. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. By this common order, two appeals bearing ITA Nos. 138 and 139 of 2000 are being disposed of as similar issue is involved. appeals are for assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. For sake of convenience, facts from ITA No. 139 of 2000 have been taken. Following substantial questions of law have been claimed: (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, MANOJ KUMAR 2020.02.05 11:19 orders Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3 are legally I attest to accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court,Chandigarh ITA No. 139 of 2000 [2] sustainable? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, addition of Rs. 3,52,607/- can be legally sustained, based on rejection of books of account but there being no discrepancy in documents produced before Assessing Authority and same having been accepted as correct? (iii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, respondents were legally justified in making addition of Rs. 3,52,607/- on account of income from sale of IMFL liquor on mere presumptions and surmises without there being any independent evidence on record to corroborate same? (iv) Whether in facts and circumstances of case, addition of Rs. 3,25,607/- is legally sustained in view of decision of learned Tribunal in cases of M/s Anil Kumar Dogra and Company reported in ITA No. 564/Chandi/93 and in case of Som Dutt Dogra & Co. reported in ITA No. 565/Chandi/93? facts necessary for adjudication are that return for assessment year 1990-91 was filed declaring income of `1,01,880/-. case was taken up for scrutiny and Assessing Officer considering that no sale register, stock register, sale vouchers were maintained and there was no breakage claimed by assessee, rejected books of account being not verifiable and made addition vide order dated 31.1.1992. dispute in present appeal is with regard to 1% estimated MANOJ KUMAR 2020.02.05 11:19 I attest to accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court,Chandigarh ITA No. 139 of 2000 [3] profit on sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for short, 'IMFL'). assessee had made sales to tune of `1,23,65,531/- and claimed losses. Assessing Officer considered fact that assessee was in liquor business since long and there are no reasons given for loss incurred and thereafter made addition. Appellate Authority dismissed appeal on 29.9.1992. appeal before Tribunal met same fate on 25.4.2000, hence present appeal. Learned counsel for appellant argued that certificate from Excise Authorities with regard to sale and purchase of liquor was produced before Assessing Officer and there was no occasion to doubt same and to estimate profit of 1% on sale of IMFL. contention raised lacks merit. certificate produced was with regard to lifting of quota of IMFL and sale thereof. It was only with regard to quantitative figure and not of sale figure. Assessing Officer had accepted sale figure shown by assessee but in absence of any reliable evidence and books of account being not worth reliance, rejected losses claimed on sale of IMFL. Considering various aspects, 1% profit was estimated on sale figure shown by assessee. In absence of any serious challenge to rejection of books of account, estimation of profit is not unreasonable or arbitrary. There was neither any sale register maintained nor there were sale bills. authorities had appreciated factual aspect and evidence before them. No interference is called for in estimated profit of 1% on sale of IMFL. MANOJ KUMAR 2020.02.05 11:19 I attest to accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court,Chandigarh ITA No. 139 of 2000 [4] No question of law much less substantial question of law arises. appeals are dismissed. (AVNEESH JHINGAN) (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE JUDGE 28.1.2020 mk Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2020.02.05 11:19 I attest to accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Mohinder Kaur v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarh and another