DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA V. M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., KOTA

ITA 1270/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9278 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Loose papers; Additional evidence
• Section: 131; 145; 148; 133A; 145(3)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S B JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 1270/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA CUKE VS. M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., 531, SHASTRI NAGAR, DADABRI, KOTA, RAJASTHAN LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AACCD2663H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI A. K. MAHALA (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B. V. MAHESHWARI (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/03/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/04/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, UDAIPUR DATED 04.09.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2015-16 WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 91,29,610/- MADE BY THE AO BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% AF TER DULY REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE REJEC TION OF BOOKS OF ITA NO. 1270/JP/2018 THE DCIT, KOTA VS. M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., KOTA 2 ACCOUNTS MADE BY THE AO DESPITE THE FACT THAT STOCK REGISTER, CONSUMPTION REGISTER AND SITE REGISTER WERE NOT PRO DUCED BEFORE THE AO EVEN IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN OBSERVING THAT THE NP R ATE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2015-16 IS MORE THAN THE NP RATE OF THE ASSESSEE IN IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR WHEN THE FACT REMAINED T HAT AN ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 30,14,580/- WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND FOR B RINGING TO TAX THE ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME, PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX WERE ALREADY INITIATED BY THE AO FOR THE AY 2014-15 . 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADD ITION OF RS. 91,29,160/- DESPITE THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 6 6,69,179/- WAS ADMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,69 ,25,550/- ON 29.09.2015. THEREAFTER A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUC TED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 06.02.2017 AND STATEMENT OF DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEES COMPANY WAS RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT ON 07.02.2017. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BAS IS SUCH STATEMENT, A SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 69,69,179/- FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SO DECLARED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE AS SESSEES COMPANY DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT T O TAX. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF I NCOME WAS FILED ITA NO. 1270/JP/2018 THE DCIT, KOTA VS. M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., KOTA 3 MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SURVEY, HENCE, THERE WAS NO WAY TO INCLUDE THE SAID INCOME OF RS. 69,69,179/- IN THE RETURN OF INC OME. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIAL FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE HAVE BEEN E NTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE S TATEMENT SO RECORDED, THERE WAS NOTHING WHICH WAS MENTIONED ABOUT THE A.Y 2015-16 BUT A TABLE WAS PREPARED AND IN THE SAID TABLE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 69,69,179/- WAS STATED AND THAT THAT TOO WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTOR SH. ANIL SHARMA IS A TECHNOCRAT AND HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE TABLE AND SIGNED THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY SURVEY TEAM. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT SO RECORDED IS BASED ON SURMISES, CONJECTURE & ON PROB ABILITY AND THAT IS NOT AS PER FACTS COMING OUT OF PAPERS SEIZED IN SUR VEY AND THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO CASE IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, A LETTER WAS ISSUED ON 27.11.2017 TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR EXAMINATION. IN RESPONSE, THE LD. AR O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY APPEARED ON 30.11.2017 AND PRODUCED CASHBOO K, SALES- PURCHASE LEDGER, BILL VOUCHER FILES FOR EXAMINATION . AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE DIDNT NOT PRODUCE STOCK REGISTER, CONSUMP TION REGISTER AND SITE REGISTER FOR EXAMINATION. IT WAS FURTHER OBSE RVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE DAY TO DAY STOCK REG ISTER AND QUANTITATIVE TALLY REPORTS ARE NOT MAINTAINED. FURT HER, REFERRING TO THE SURVEY ACTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OFFERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEFORE SURVEY TEAM ON AC COUNT OF VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES NOTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE , IT WAS HELD THAT ITA NO. 1270/JP/2018 THE DCIT, KOTA VS. M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., KOTA 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN HIS INCOME ON ESTIMATION BAS IS. THE STOCK REGISTER HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED AND IN ABSENCE OF QU ANTITATIVE DETAILS THE CORRECT INCOME CANNOT BE DETERMINED. ACCORDINGL Y, THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) AND REJECTED THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, LOOKING AT THE DISCREPANCY N OTED BY THE SURVEY TEAM AND NON MAINTENANCE OF PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S, A FLAT NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% WAS APPLIED AS AGAINST 5.18% DISC LOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME WHICH HAS RESULTED IN ADDITION OF RS. 91,29,610/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN ITS SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY, STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR SH. ANI L SHARMA WAS RECORDED WHEREIN HE DISCLOSED SOME INCOME BUT DOES NOT COME UP FROM THE SEIZED PAPERS GIVEN ON ANNEXURE A-1 TO A-7 ON W HICH BASIS THE SAID INCOME WAS DISCLOSED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS KED FOR LABOUR WAGES REGISTER & STOCK REGISTER. THE LABOUR WAGES R EGISTER WAS PRODUCED & FOR STOCK REGISTER, IT WAS STATED THAT A LL THE MATERIAL ARE DIRECTLY ISSUED TO THE SITE, HENCE THE TALLY OF CON SUMPTION MENTIONED IN THE BILLS RECORDED IN BOOKS OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS I TSELF ARE THE STOCK REGISTER. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AO THOROUGHLY EXAMINED THE BOOKS, VOUCHERS, BANK A/CS AND HAVE NOT FOUND ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE SAID BOOKS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIEW THAT NON-MAINTENANCE OF ITEM-WISE STOCK REGISTER WAS JUS TIFIED FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN EVERY CASE, WAS NOT UNACCEP TABLE, WHERE STOCK ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED, AND IT WAS NOT KNOWN THAT THE ABSENCE OF SUCH ITEM-WISE STOCK REGISTER MADE DETECTION OF UND ERSTATEMENT OF ITA NO. 1270/JP/2018 THE DCIT, KOTA VS. M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., KOTA 5 INCOME IMPOSSIBLE AND IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLAC ED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. POONAM RANI (2010) 326 ITR 223 (DEL.). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT M ERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED INCOME DURING SURVEY, PROPER CONSIDERATION AS TO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION IS NOT RULED OUT. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED SOME INCOME DURING SURVEY ON ALLEGATION OF CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES, BUT LATER RETRACTED FROM THE SAME EX PLAINING THE DISCREPANCIES, THERE COULD BE NO ADDITION, UNLESS T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE ACCOUNTS ARE NOT CORRECT AND COMPLETE OR THE METHOD EMPLOYED FOR SUCH ACCOUNTING DOES NOT ENABLE HIM TO COMPUTE THE CORRECT INCOME AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON DECISION OF HONBLE M. P HIGH COURT IN CASE OF RAMDAS JUGANI V. CIT (2006) 282 IT R 356 (MP). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED CONCEALED INCOME AND THE ACCOUNTS WERE EVEN OTHERWI SE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED, THE ESTIMATE OF INCOME HAS TO BE ON A REA SONABLE BASIS. ADMISSION CANNOT JUSTIFY ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERI NG FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT T HERE WAS NO BASIS FOR AO TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. REGARDING E STIMATION OF PROFITS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT RATE OF 5.18% WHICH IS BETTER THAN NP RATE ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. IT WAS FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS WHICH IS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER REGARDING ESTIMATION OF NP RATE OF 8%, THEREFORE, AS PER THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED A BETTER NP RA TE AND THERE IS NO BASIS WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISTURB THE SAM E. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED ITA NO. 1270/JP/2018 THE DCIT, KOTA VS. M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., KOTA 6 FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE GARDING THE STOCK REGISTER WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN HIS REMAND REPORT, THE AO H AS CONFIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ITEM-WISE DETAILS OF MATE RIAL INWARD AND OUTWARD FOR THE F.Y 2014-15 WHICH HAVE BEEN EXAMINE D BY HIM. THE AO HAS FURTHER STATED IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT THO UGH THE AR HAS EXPLAINED THE OPENING QUANTITY, PURCHASE QUANTITY A ND CLOSING QUANTITY FROM BILLS AND ALSO PRODUCED PURCHASE BILLS FOR VER IFICATION OF ITEM WISE DETAILS OF MATERIAL INWARD AND OUTWARD, HOWEVER, DA Y TO DAY STOCK REGISTER AND CONSUMPTION REGISTER HAS NOT BEEN PROD UCED FOR EXAMINATION. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) THEREAFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERA TION THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES DIRECTOR RECORDED DURING THE COUR SE OF SURVEY, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, A ND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ON READIN G OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, NO SPECIFIC D ISCREPANCIES WERE POINTED OUT EITHER DURING THE SURVEY, OR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AS FAR AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, LOOSE PAPERS ETC FOUND DURING THE SURVEY. THE LD CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT THE AO CONVENIENTLY CITED ABSENCE OF STOCK REGISTER TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ITEM-WISE DETAILS OF MATERIAL INWARD & OUTWARD FOR AY 2015-16 AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND WHICH HAS BEEN V ERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY HELD BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT GIVEN THE FACTUAL EXAMINATION AND ADMISSION BY THE AO DUR ING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE GROUND TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS NO LONGER EXIST AS MERE NON PRODUCTION OF DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER AND THE CONSUMPTION REGISTER CANNOT BE SOLE GROUND TO REJEC T THE BOOKS OF ITA NO. 1270/JP/2018 THE DCIT, KOTA VS. M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., KOTA 7 ACCOUNT AND THE ACTION OF THE AO REGARDING REJECTIO N OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS NOT UPHELD. REGARDING ESTIMATION OF G .P RATE, LD. CIT(A) REFERRED TO THE NP RATE OF LAST 3 YEARS AND THE NP RATE @ 5.18% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A BETTER NP RATE DURING THE YEAR AND THERE IS NO BASIS TO SUPPORT A HIGHER NP RATE AS ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NP @ 8% WITHOUT ANY COMPARATIVE CASE. 7. THE LD. DR WAS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE FIND INGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT ONCE TH E ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THE INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTICED DURING THE COURSE OF SUR VEY WHICH HAS FORMED THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF UND ISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE YEAR AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF REJECTION OF B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT RATE. 8. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DISCREPANCI ES WHICH HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE BILLS MAR KED AS ANNEXURE-7 ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE B EEN VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE STOCK IS PROPERLY MAINTAI NED AND BOOKS ARE AUDITED AND THE NP RATE IS BETTER THAN PREVIOUS YEA R. THERE WAS NO BASIS WITH THE AO TO ESTIMATE NP @ 8%. REGARDING TH E DISCLOSURE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS WHICH HAS BEEN STATED IN THE STATEMENT SO RECORDED AND IT WAS PURELY AND TOTAL PREPARED BY THE SURVEY TEAM AND WHEN DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO SEEK THE REASONS, THE ITA NO. 1270/JP/2018 THE DCIT, KOTA VS. M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., KOTA 8 AO TURNED TO STOCK QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ETC, THIS M EANS THAT THE LD. AO DEVIATED FROM THE AMOUNT OF DECLARATION, AND PICKED UP THE OTHER WAY TO JUSTIFY HIS ADDITION, AS SUCH THE DECLARATION OF ANY AMOUNT & CONSEQUENT GROUND TAKEN IS NULLITY ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. 9. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERSUED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THERE ARE D EFICIENCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS SO FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND BASIS THE SAME, THE DECLARATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEES COMPANY AND WHICH HAS NO T BEEN HONOURED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE AO HAS ACCORDINGLY PR OCEEDED TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY INVOKING SECTION 145(3) AN D HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT RATE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT FIRSTLY, THERE ARE NO DISCREPANCIES WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SURVEY AND WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ARE CERTAIN BILLS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D FURTHER, THERE IS NO BASIS AS TO HOW THE FIGURE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS 66,69,179 HAS BEEN DETERMINED. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE ASSESSMEN T AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND NO SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR REJECT ION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF THE DIREC TOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURV EY AND FIND THAT THE QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED RELATES TO CER TAIN BILLS/VOUCHERS/INVOICES RELATING TO FINANCIAL YEARS 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 AND 2016-17 WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY T HE ASSESSEES ITA NO. 1270/JP/2018 THE DCIT, KOTA VS. M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., KOTA 9 DIRECTOR. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THESE BILLS/VOUCHER S/INVOICES BY THE ASSESSEES DIRECTOR MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE CONFIRM S THAT THESE INVOICES/VOUCHERS/BILLS PERTAIN TO ITS BUSINESS ACT IVITIES, HOWEVER THE SAME DOESNT IMPLY THAT THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THESE TRANSACTIONS OR THESE ARE UNRECORDED TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING OF THE SURVEY TEAM THA T THERE ARE ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THESE TRANSACTIONS OR THESE ARE UN RECORDED TRANSACTIONS. IF WE LOOK AT QUESTION NO. 9, REFERR ING TO THESE BILLS/VOUCHERS/INVOICES IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXURE A EX HIBIT 1-7, FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2015-16, ADDITIONAL INCOME, IN ADDITION TO NET PROFIT, ALREADY DECLARED HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT RS 1,05,00,969; SIM ILARLY, FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2016-17, ADDITIONAL INCOME, IN ADDITION TO NET PROFIT, ALREADY DECLARED HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT RS 35,30,374 AND UN DISCLOSED INVESTMENT HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT RS 49,85,049 REFE RRING TO THESE BILLS/VOUCHERS. HOWEVER, FOR THE IMPUGNED FINANCIA L YEAR 2014-15, AN AMOUNT OF RS 69,69,179 HAS BEEN DETERMINED AS ADDIT IONAL INCOME IN ADDITION TO NET PROFIT ALREADY DECLARED OF RS 169,2 5,552 WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE OR LINKAGE TO ANY BILLS/VOUCHERS/INVOICES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. HOW THE SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME HA S BEEN DETERMINED BY THE SURVEY TEAM IS ALSO NOT CLEAR. EVEN FROM T HE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH ESTABLISHES ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN THE BILLS/VOUCHERS/INVOICES FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND ADDITIONAL INCOME SO DETERMINED BY THE S URVEY TEAM. IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME, WE AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF T HE LD CIT(A) THAT THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES WHICH HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE SURVEY TEAM OR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SO FAR AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BILLS/VOUCHERS/INVOICES FOUND DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY AND EVEN THE BASIS OF DETERMINATION AND QUANTIFICAT ION OF ADDITIONAL ITA NO. 1270/JP/2018 THE DCIT, KOTA VS. M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., KOTA 10 INCOME IS ALSO NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE RECORDS. 11. NOW, REFERRING TO THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS S TATED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CASHBOOK, SALES-PURCHASE LEDGER, BILL VOUCHER FILES FOR EXAMINATION, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DIDNT NOT P RODUCE STOCK REGISTER, CONSUMPTION REGISTER AND SITE REGISTER FO R EXAMINATION. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER AND QUANTITATIVE TALLY REPORTS A RE NOT MAINTAINED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE ST OCK REGISTER WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LATTER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ITEM-WISE DETAILS OF MATERIAL INWARD AND OUTWARD FO R THE F.Y 2014-15 WHICH HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY HIM. THE AO HAS FURTHER STATED IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT THOUGH THE AR HAS EXPLAINED THE OPENING QUANTITY, PURCHASE QUANTITY AND CLOSING QUANTITY FROM BILLS A ND ALSO PRODUCED PURCHASE BILLS FOR VERIFICATION OF ITEM WISE DETAIL S OF MATERIAL INWARD AND OUTWARD, HOWEVER, DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER AND CON SUMPTION REGISTER HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION. TO OUR MIND , ONCE THE STOCK REGISTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR VERIFICATION WHICH CONTAINS THE OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, AND CLOSING STOCK AND ON EXAMINAT ION THEREOF, THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MERELY FOR NON-MAINTENANCE OF DAY-TO-DAY REGISTER AND OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN CASE OF POONAM RAI (SUPRA). WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HA S RIGHTLY DISAPPROVED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONCE THE ITA NO. 1270/JP/2018 THE DCIT, KOTA VS. M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., KOTA 11 BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE UPHELD, WE DONOT SEE ANY MERI T IN THE TRADING ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DISTUR BING THE BOOK RESULTS AND ESTIMATING NET PROFIT RATE AND THAT TOO, WITHOU T BRINGING ON RECORD ANY COMPARATIVE CASES OR EVEN EXAMINING THE PAST HI STORY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARE D BETTER RESULTS THAN IN THE PAST YEARS. IN THE RESULT, WE DONOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY CO NFIRMED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/04/2019 . SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 03/04/2019. *GANESH KR VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE DCIT, KOTA 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S DHRUV BUILDCON DESIGNERS PVT. LTD., KOTA 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 1270/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR