IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 ITA.No. 1 of 2006() ------------------- ITA.239/COCH/2001 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE ---------------------------------------------- M/S.NIDHISH TRADING COMPANY, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/REVENUE ------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT FOR R1 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, ALONG WITH I.T.A. NO.2/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal Nos.1 & 2 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Even though appeals are filed by the assessee, counsel who filed the cases for the appellant submitted that he has relinquished vakalath and the matter was informed to the party and their Chartered Accountant two months back. Since the appellant has not chosen to engage counsel, we have perused the records, heard Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department and proceed to dispose of the appeals on merits. 2. The appellant, a firm engaged in procurement and transport of firewood to Grasim Industries, Mavoor, produced books of accounts for verification by the Assessing Officer. However, it was noticed that bills and vouchers contained no specific details about suppliers or even place of sourcing of firewood. It is not known why the assessee failed to show details of the transactions in the bills and vouchers produced. In the absence of reliable records, the Assessing Officer estimated income at 8% of the total receipts. Even though first appellate authority reduced the estimation to 4%, the Tribunal on further appeal refixed the same at 7.5% of 2 the gross receipts. Even though assessee is questioning the estimation of gross profit at 7.5%, we do not find any question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal because if accounts are unreliable, option is only to estimate the profit. The three authorities have fixed different rates only prove that it is a decision on facts. Consequently we decline to interfere with the finding of fact entered by the Tribunal by refixing rate of profit at 7.5% of the gross receipts. So far as depreciation is concerned, we find that the appellant themselves did not press the issue before the Tribunal. In any case they cannot claim higher rate of depreciation for vehicles used for transport of goods in their own business. Since higher rate of depreciation on lorry is available only for lorries given on hire, appellant was rightly declined higher rate claimed by them. No question of law arises from the finding of the Tribunal on this issue also. We, therefore, dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms