BRIJESH TEXTILES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is challenging the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra, dated May 5, 2003. The appellant is a manufacturer of sarees of different lengths and for that purpose used to purchase gray cloth from various parties. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessment Officer came to the conclusion that the purchases from various parties totalling Rs. 4,04,019 were not verifiable. The appellant could not produce the bills of these parties and claimed that they were petty manufacturers and hence they did not submit bills. The appellant claimed that the bills of these four parties were got printed by the asses-see himself and were issued as and when those parties came to sell their cloths. The Assessing Officer made efforts to verify the assessee's stand by sending notices to these parties, but all the letters came back unnerved with the remarks "not known" or "incomplete address". The Assessing Officer further found that the payments to these parties were shown to have been through demand draft, but in fact, no such demand drafts were ever obtained by the assessee. Hence the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that these purchases were not verifiable. He also held that the number of sarees shown to have been produced was less than the actual number of sarees which could be produced. He also held that the assessee has shown bogus purchases showing the length of sarees to be 4.5 or 5 meters, although it was in fact, 4.39 meters. The Commissioner of Income-tax upheld the rejection of accounts but modified the order of the Assessing Officer. On further appeal the Tribunal decided in favour of the Revenue. Before the Tribunal it was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that the finding of the Assessing Officer that the length of the sarees was 4.39 meters was based on assumptions and in fact it was 4.5 or 5 meters. When the assessee was asked to give the details of the number of sarees purchased having length of 4.5 or 5 meters separately, counsel admitted before the Tribunal that no such details were maintained. The Tribunal held in Para. 11 of its judgment that the assessee having not maintained the quantitiwise details of sarees purchased having length of 4.5 or 5 meters, it was quite possible that the actual length of sarees was not as claimed by the assessee and bogus purchases were being entered by the assessee in its books. We find no legal error in the impugned order of the Tribunal. It must be remembered that in an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, this court cannot go into questions of fact, and can only interfere when there is error of law in the impugned order. THIS court under section 260A is not sitting like a court of first appeal and hence cannot interfere with the findings of fact of the Tribunal. Whether the sarees were of 4.5 or 4.39 meters is not a question which can be gone into an appeal under section 260A. Once the accounts of the assessee are rejected a best judgment assessment can be made, and it is well settled that a best judgment always has an element of guess work vide CIT v. Laxminarain Badridas [1937] 5 ITR 170 (PC); State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty [1966] 60 ITR 239 (SC) and Brij Ehushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 (SC), etc. Whether the purchases were bogus or not, is a pure question of fact, and this court cannot interfere with the same in this appeal under section 260A. We find no error of law in the impugned order of the Tribunal, The appeal is dismissed.