ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Ram Pal & Party (AOP), New Delhi

ITA 1031/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7105 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RASMITA JHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 131; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, AM & SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JM ITA NO.830/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 RAM PAL & PARTY (AOP), E-78, 1 ST FLOOR, LIC COLONY, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAAAR3396R VS. ITO (OSD), DELHI-IX, CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI. ITA NO. 1031 /DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ITO (OSD), WARD 25(1) NEW DELHI. VS. RAM PAL & PARTY (AOP), E-78, 1 ST FLOOR, LIC COLONY, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAAAR3396R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.S. SINGHVI, CA DEPARTMENT BY : S MT. RASMITA JHA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.12 . 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 . 0 2 .201 6 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: 1. THESE APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER B Y THE REVENUE - ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT( A)-XXIV, NEW ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 2 DELHI ON 12.12.2011IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS; ITA NO. 1031/D/12: (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1.94 CR. BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. (II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE GP RATE ADDITION TO RS. 30 LAC. (III) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE M ATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE FRESH EVIDENCE IN A HOLISTIC MANNER. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD ANY OTHER GRO UND OF APPEAL. ITA NO. 830/D/12: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING TRADING ADDI TION OF RS. 30 LACS WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AN D NATURE OF BUSINESS; 2. THAT THERE IS NO FACTUAL OR LEGAL BASIS FOR REJECTI NG BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) AND ESTIMATION OF PROFIT WIT HOUT MAKING REFERENCE TO ANY COMPARABLE CASE OR ANY SPEC IFIC DEFECTS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES AND SALES SUPPORTED BY AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND TAX AUDIT REPORT. 3. THAT PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT, REASONABLE AND SUPPORTED FROM AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR ESTIMATION AND ANY ADDI TION. 4. THAT ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIF IED AND SAME ARE BAD IN LAW. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME DE CLARING AN INCOME OF RS.4,92,336/- WAS FILED ON 1.11.2004. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND STATUTORY NOTICES WERE IS SUED AND SERVED ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 3 UPON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION, THE ASSESSEE TOOK A CONTRACT FOR TRADING OF LIQUOR IN D ISTRICT CHURU, RAJASTHAN IN THE MONTH OF JUNE W.E.F. 29.06.2003 TO 31.03.2004. THE CONTRACT/LICENCE TAKEN BY THE AOP WAS FOR PURCH ASE/SALE OF INDIAN LIQUOR AND INDIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR. 2.1. THE APPELLANT SOLD LIQUOR FROM 135 OUTLETS IN CHURU DISTRICT AS APPROVED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND MADE A TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.17,25,44,586/-, SHOWING A GROSS PROFIT OF RS.38, 44,446/- AT A GP RATE OF 22.28%. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN AOP (ASSOCIAT ION OF PERSONS) WHO HAD COME TOGETHER TO START A LIQUOR BUSINESS. A S PER THE DETAILS GIVEN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THERE WERE NINE MEMB ERS OF THE AOP (THREE INDIVIDUALS AND SIX COMPANIES), WHO HAD MADE INITIAL INVESTMENT OF THEIR CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION IN THE AOP AMOUNTING TO RS.1,94,00,000/-. 2.2. IN ORDER TO GET THE CAPITAL INTRODUCTION MADE BY TH E MEMBERS VERIFIED, SUMMONS U/S. 131 OF THE ACT WERE SENT TO EIGHT MEMBERS OF THE AOP SINCE THE ADDRESS OF THE NINTH MEMBER NA MELY SH. RAJ KUMAR WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. SE VEN OUT OF EIGHT ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 4 SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE AOP U/S. 131 B Y THE AO RETURNED BACK UN-SERVED BY POST. AS A RESULT, THE A SSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN THE APPELLANT AOP AS UNVERIFIED AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,94,00,000/- TO THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AFTER RECORDING DETAILE D REASONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2.3. THE AO PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF KALE KHAN MOH AMMAD KHANIF VS. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF SUM OF MONEY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IS ON HIM. THE AO PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., 187 IT R 596 (CA I), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT MERE FILING OF CONFIR MATORY LETTERS DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS THAT LIES ON THE ASSESS EE. THE AO HAS ALSO QUOTED THE CASE OF OCEANIC PRODUCTS EXPORTING COMPANY VS. CIT (2000) 241 ITR 497, AS PER WHICH THE BURDEN IS PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE CREDITS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THAT SUCH A BURDEN HAS TO BE DISCHARGED WITH POSITIVE MATERIAL. 2.4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD DECLARED A GP RATE OF 22.28% ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.1 7,25,44,586/-. ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 5 THE AO NOTICED THAT THE SALES WERE TOTALLY UN-VOUCH ED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SALE BILLS OR DAILY SALES SHEETS, WH ICH WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE TR ADING RESULTS COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. HE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 145(3) OF THE ACT AS BEING UNRELIABLE AND ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT 25%, THUS, MAKI NG AN ADDITION OF RS.46,91,681/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD T HE ACTIONS OF THE LD.AO IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION. 145(3) AND REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN RESPECT OF THE UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDITS, THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED AS UNDER; I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES PLACED O N RECORD. I HAVE CAREFULLY ANALYZED THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AND THE LOGIC OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING TH E ADDITION OF RS.1,94,00,000/- U/S, 68. AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLEARLY BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE ID ENTITY OF EACH OF THE NINE MEMBERS OF THE AOP. THE APPELLA NT HAS ALSO BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE SOURCE FROM WHICH T HEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED THEIR INITIAL CAPITAL TO THE APPEL LANT. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE IDEN TITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE AOP WHO ARE REGULAR INCOME TA X ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 6 ASSESSEES. HAVING DONE SO, THE ONUS WAS FULLY DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT AS FAR AS THE CREDIT EN TRIES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE CONCERNED. THUS, IN M Y OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE. THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS CLEARLY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S. LOVELY EXPORTS (SUPRA) AND IF AT A LL THE AO WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SOURCE, HE SHOU LD HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO ADD THESE AMOUNTS IN THE INDIVI DUAL HANDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE AOP, WHICH ACTION HE HA S DULY TAKEN. IN FACT, IT IS SEEN THAT PROTECTIVE ASS ESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF ONE MEMBER, NAMELY, M/S NOVEAL DEAL, WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBU NAL. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ADDITION OF RS.1,94,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT U/S. 68 AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), BOTH ASSES SEE AS WELL AS REVENUE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. ITA NO. 1031/D/12 GROUND NO.(I) 4.1. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. 4.2. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE BASIS OF THIS ADDITIO N AND THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE AO ARE PERVERSE ON FA CTS, DOCUMENTS, PROVISION OF ACT AND THE PROPOSITION OF LAW. THE LD .AR SUBMITTED ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 7 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY P ROVIDING COMPLETE DETAILS OF EACH OF THE NINE MEMBERS OF THE AOP, OUT OF WHICH, SIX WERE LIMITED/PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES, DULY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES. 4.3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THAT ALL THE NINE MEMBERS OF THE AOP WERE REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND PAN NUMBERS OF EACH OF THE MEMBERS W ERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, ALONG WITH THE IR NAMES, ADDRESSES, PROFIT SHARING RATIO, CAPITAL CONTRIBUTI ON, SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, DETAILS OF THE IDENTITY AND INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT DETAILS. 4.4. LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN THE FO RM OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS HAVE ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. IN ORDER TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTH INESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE SOURCES OF INV ESTMENT BY THE NINE MEMBERS OF THE AOP HAVE ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RE CORD IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL ACCOUNTS, CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORAT ION, COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS, COPY OF DEMAND DRAFT AND MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLE OF ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 8 ASSOCIATION IN THE CASE OF SIX COMPANIES. THE PROOF OF THE FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS BY EACH MEMBER OF THE AOP HAS BE EN A MATTER OF RECORD BEFORE THE AO. EVEN AFFIDAVITS OF FOUR ME MBERS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE AO. A PAPER-BOOK WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO, IN WHICH THE DETAILS OF RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY EAC H MEMBER OF THE AOP ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS WERE PLACED ON R ECORD. EVEN THE DATA FROM THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES INCLUDING COMPANY MASTER DETAIL AND CIN WERE ALSO SUPPLIED TO THE AO. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW, THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ARGUMENTS PLACED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE FUNDS HAVE BEE N CONTRIBUTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE AOP. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLEAR LY ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITIES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE AOP AND HAS AL SO PROVED THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED THEIR INITI AL CAPITAL. 5.1. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE IDENTITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE AOP, WHCO ARE RE GULARLY BEING ASSESSED WITH THE INCOME TAX. THE LD. AR PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON; 1. LAXMI IMAGING & MEDICAL RESEARCH VS. ACIT (2013) 14 1 ITD 297 (JODH) (TRIB), ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 9 2. ABHYUDAYA PHARMACEUTICALS V. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 358 (ALL) (HC) 3. CIT VS. ODEDARA CONSTRUCTION (2014) 362 ITR 338 (GUJ) (HC). 5.2. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHA RGED ITS ONUS BY GIVING ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE AOP. IN THE DECISION OF LAXMI IMAGING (SUPRA), THIS TRIBUNA L HAS DEALT WITH A SIMILAR ISSUE. THEREIN THIS TRIBUNAL HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KEWAL KRISHNA & PARTNERS REPORTED IN (2009) 18 DTR 121, W HEREIN THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- IT WAS FOR THE PARTNERS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AND IF THEY FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS THEN, SUCH DEPOSITS COULD BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER S ONLY AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FIRM. IN ANY CASE, SUCH CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS ENTERED INTO THE BOOKS O F THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM PRIOR TO THE COMMENCE MENT OF THE BUSINESS CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IN CONSIDERED OPINION OF THIS COURT, SUCH UNEXPLAINED CREDITS MAY BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF T HE PARTNERS CONCERNED IN TERMS OF SECTION 69 AND NOT U /S 68 OF THE ACT OF 1961. 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, SINCE THE AMOUNT DEPOS ITED WAS FROM THE PARTNERS, THEREFORE, BY KEEPING IN VIE W THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE, AT THE MOST THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS, IF THEY FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ON US BUT NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. MOREOVER, T HE CONTRIBUTION OF THE CAPITAL BY THE PARTNERS WAS PRI OR TO ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 10 THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS, SO IT COULD NOT H AVE BEEN TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.3. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND FIND INGS, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. GROUND NO. (II) 6.THE LD.DR SUPPORTS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 6.1. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD LIQ UOR FROM 135 OUTLETS IN CHURU DISTRICT AS APPROVED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND MADE A TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.17,25,44,586/-, SHO WING A GROSS PROFIT OF RS.38,44,446/- AT A GP RATE OF 22.28%. IN THE ABSENCE OF SALE BILLS OR DAILY SALES SHEETS, THE LD.AO REJECTE D THE TRADING RESULTS. HE ALSO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 145(3) OF THE ACT AS BEING UNRELIABLE AND ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT 25%, THUS, MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.46,91,681/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE SAME TO RS.30 LACS. 6.2. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE LD.AO AFTER COMP LETE APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HAS REJ ECTED THE BOOKS OF ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 11 ACCOUNTS NOT MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT SALE PRICES OF VARIOUS BRANDS OF LIQUOR WERE NOT AVAILABLE, BUT ON THE GRO UND THAT THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR SALES OF LIQUOR WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD.AO HAS ALSO NOTED THE FACT THAT TH E APPELLANT HAD 135 OUTLETS FOR SALE OF LIQUOR IN THE DISTRICT OF C HURU, RAJASTHAN, WHICH WERE DULY APPROVED BY THE STATE EXCISE DEPART MENT. HE HAS ALSO RIGHTLY PRESUMED THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD DEFI NITELY BE HAVING SOME KIND OF CONTROL MECHANISM, IN ORDER TO CONTROL THE SALE OF LIQUOR FROM SUCH A LARGE NUMBER OF OUTLETS. EVEN IF , BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE NOT COMPLETELY MAINTAINED, A DAILY SA LE SHEET MUST HAVE DEFINITELY BEEN MAINTAINED TO ENABLE THE MEMBE RS OF THE AOP TO KEEP TRACK OF SALES AFFECTED AT EACH OUTLET. 6.3. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS O F THE LD.CIT(A) AND RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.30 LACS. 6.4. IN LIEU OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THIS GROUND O F REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 12 ITA NO. 830/D/12 GROUND NO. 1 7. IN LIEU OF THE DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS MADE BY US IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. (II) IN REVENUES APPEAL, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2: 8. THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MERELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT SALE PRICES OF VARIOUS BRANDS OF LIQUOR WERE NOT AVAILABLE. 8.1. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTIONS OF THE AO AS UNDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUME NTS MADE BY HIM. THE AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT SALE PRICES OF VARIOUS BRANDS OF LIQUOR WERE NOT AVAILABLE, BUT HE HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AFTER COMPLETE APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHEREIN HE HAS FOUND THAT BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR SA LES OF LIQUOR WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT ALL. THE AO HAS ALSO N OTED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD 135 OUTLETS FOR SAL E OF LIQUOR IN THE DISTRICT OF CHURU, RAJASTHAN, WHICH W ERE DULY APPROVED BY THE STATE EXCISE DEPARTMENT. HE HA S ALSO RIGHTLY PRESUMED THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD DEFI NITELY BE HAVING SOME KIND OF CONTROL MECHANISM, IN ORDER TO ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 13 CONTROL THE SALE OF LIQUOR FROM SUCH A LARGE NUMBER OF OUTLETS. EVEN IF, BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE NOT COMPL ETELY MAINTAINED, A DAILY SALE SHEET MUST HAVE DEFINITELY BEEN MAINTAINED TO ENABLE THE MEMBERS OF THE AOP TO KEEP TRACK OF SALES AFFECTED AT EACH OUTLET. DESPITE THE DIRECTIONS OF THE AO, THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRODUCE D THE SALE BILLS/VOUCHERS, NOR PRODUCED THE DAILY SALE SH EET FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE AO. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS WE LL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SALES OF THE APPELLANT WERE NOT VERIFIABLE AND THEREFORE, DUE TO THIS DEFECT, THE PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT AS PE R HIS BOOKS WERE NOT RELIABLE. THUS, IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE AO INVOKING PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 145(3) AND REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 8.2. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF LIQ UOR OF VARIOUS BRANDS. THE LD.AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AS THE SALE PRICE, QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DETAIL S OF THE SALES MADE, WERE NOT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFOR E IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE LD.AO TO VERIFY THE SALES. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EVEN MAINTAINED A DAILY SALES SHEET FOR EXA MINATION AND VERIFICATION. WE ARE AGREEABLE WITH THE FINDING S OF THE LD.CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE THEREFORE STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 14 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.02.201 6. SD/- SD/- [ N.K. SAINI ] [ BEENA A. PILLAI ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 08 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ITA NO.830 & 1031/DEL/2012 15