The ACIT, Circle-4, Surat V. M/s. Shakti Cargo Movers Pvt.Ltd., Surat

ITA 2372/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: 237220514 RSA 2004
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Question of law; Wrong claim; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 260A; 145

Judgement Text

, , . .. . . .. . , , , , ! !! ! . .. .'# !'# '# !'# '# !'# '# !'# , $ $ $ $ % % % % IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : B BENCH : AHMEDABAD BEFORE HONBLE SHRI D.K.TYAGI, J.M. & HONBLE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M.) ! !! ! . ITA NO. 2372/AHD./2004 : # &' - 2001-2002 A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, SURAT VS-M/S. SHAKTI CARGO MOVERS PVT. LTD., SURAT (PAN : AADCS 3976R) ( () /APPELLANT) ( *() /RESPONDENT ) () + , / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR.D.R. *() + , / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR, SR.ADV. WITH SHRI JAIMIN GANDHI -#. + /$ / DATE OF HEARING : 20/10/2011 0'& + /$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/12/2011 1 1 1 1 / ORDER PER SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-III, SU RAT IN APPEAL NO.CAS-III-48/03-04 DATED 27.05.2004 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001- 2002 PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) R.W.S. 143(3) OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,53,076/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW NET PROFIT BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(1) OF THE ACT . 3. BEFORE TAKING UP THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR ADJUDI CATION, WE WOULD LIKE TO RECORD THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS WHICH TOOK PL ACE DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD THAT THE LD. AO, FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF T HE ASSESSEE U/S ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 2 145(1) OF THE ACT FOR NON-MAINTENANCE OF LOG BOOK I N RESPECT OF CARS AND NON-MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS RELATING TO LORRY HIRE E XPENSES AND ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES NET PROFIT AT 4.57% AND DI FFERENCE OF RS.20,53,076/- WAS ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES TOTAL IN COME. WHEN THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUE, AMONG OTHERS, WITH THE LD. CIT (A) FOR RELIEF, THE LD. CIT (A), FOR THE REASONS SET-OUT IN HIS FIN DINGS, HELD THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE I N THE EYES OF LAW AND AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE ADDITION OF RS.20.53 LAKHS W AS DELETED. 3.1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), T HE REVENUE HAD APPROACHED THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL FOR REVERSAL OF THE LD. CIT (A)S STAND. THE EARLIER BENCH, IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NOS.2371 & 2 372/AHD/2004 DATED: 7.11.2008, AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, HAD OBSERVED THUS: 16. ON OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIALS BROU GHT ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT OPEN TO VERIFICATION IN THE ABSENCE OF INDE PENDENT AND THIRD PARTY VOUCHERS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER OF THE AO REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS IS CONFIRMED. THE NE T PROFIT RATE ESTIMATED BY THE AO, ACCORDING TO US, IS ON HIGHER SIDE. WE, THEREFORE, RESTRICT THE NET PROFIT RATE TO 4% AFTER TAKING INTO ALL THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SHALL WOR K OUT THE NET PROFIT ACCORDINGLY. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE FINDING OF THE EARLIER BENCH, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE THROUGH AN APPEAL U/S 260A OF THE ACT BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WITH THE FOLLOWI NG SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW: (I) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN R EVERSING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WITHOUT IN ANY WAY DISCUSSING THE FINDINGS REACHED BY THE SAID AUTHORITY AND FINDING THE SAME TO BE ERRONEOUS AS IT WAS A DUTY OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ASCE RTAIN THE REASONS WHICH WERE GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEA LS) IN ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 3 WHOSE ORDER, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MERGED BEFORE REVERSING THE SAME? [(257 ITR 297 (GUJARAT)] (II) WHETHER, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN A RBITRARILY FIXING THE NET PROFIT RATE AT 4%? (III) WHETHER, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN R EJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT U/S 145(1) OF THE ACT? 4.1. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL PARTIES, THE HONBLE C OURT HAS, IN ITS ORDER IN TAX APPEAL NO.2324 OF 2009 DATED 19.1.2010, OBSERVE D THAT: 6. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT AT ALL DISCUSSED ABOUT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AND WHY THE SAID FIND ING IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IF THE TRIBUNAL WERE NOT AGREEABLE WI TH THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE CIT (APPEALS), IN THAT CASE, THE TR IBUNAL SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE C IT (APPEALS) AND TO GIVE ITS OWN REASONS AS TO WHY THE SAID FIND ING IS NOT SUSTAINABLE EITHER ON FACTS OR IN LAW. IN ABSENCE OF THIS EXERCISE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND HENCE THE SAME IS HEREBY QUASHED AND SET ASIDE AND THE MA TTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE IT DENOVO. THE TRIBUNAL IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER DEALING WITH THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AND IF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE CIT ( APPEALS), THE REASONS FOR SUCH DISAGREEMENT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY B E REFLECTED IN THE ORDER THAT MAY BE PASSED. 4.2. THUS, THE REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNE D ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) HAS COME UP BEFORE THIS BENCH FOR CONSIDERAT ION IN CONSEQUENT UPON THE RULING OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT REFERRED SUPRA . 5. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE COMPANY [THE ASSESSEE HENCEFORTH] ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TR ANSPORTATION OF GOODS, FURNISHED ITS RETURN OF INCOME, ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.40,77,950/- ON 24.10.2001 WHICH WAS, INITIALLY, PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND, SUBSEQUENTLY, TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTIN Y. DURING THE COURSE OF ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 4 HEARING, IN COMPLIANCE TO QUERIES RAISED, ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAD RESPONDED THAT (I) MAINTENANCE AND USA GE OF CARS NO LOGBOOK WAS MAINTAINED; (II) DETAILS OF GROSS PROFI T PER TRUCK IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE SUCH DETAILS; AND FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID CASH TO TRUCK DRIVERS AS PER TRIPS IN DIFF ERENT AMOUNTS AND NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION OR ANY PROOF WAS FORTH-COMIN G. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PROFIT A ND LOSS STATEMENT WERE NOT ACCEPTED AND, HENCE, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED U/S 145(1) OF THE ACT. FOR ARRIVING AT TH E CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NET PROFIT OF 3.81% LESSER WHICH CAME TO RS.20,53,076/-, THE LD. AO HAD REASONED THAT: [PARA 6 OF THE ASST. ORDER] I AM NOT SATISFIED WIT H THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO DECREASE IN RATE OF BOOKING INCOME TOTAL INCOME IS REDUCED WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATE. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO GIVE CHAL LAN-WISE DETAILS OF INCOME AND EXPENSE. SO, IN THIS REGARD, RIGHT TO HAVE AN EXCESS TO THE BASIC SUPPORTING EVIDENCES HAS BEE N DEFEATED. THIS HAS TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. IN ADDITION TO THAT ASSESSEE HAD TO REDUCE RATE OF BOOKING INCOME FROM HYDERABAD TO SUR AT FROM RS.1.80 PER KG. TO RS.1.50 PER KG. THIS REDUCTION IS OF ONLY OF RE.30 PAISE WHICH IS AROUND 17% REDUCTION AND ALSO FOR THE PERIOD 9.10.2000 TO 31.3.2001 ASSESSEE HAD CHARGED RS.1.60 PER KG. THE NET PROFIT RATIO OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS 5.31% IN THE LAST AY I.E., 2000-01 IS REDUCED TO 0.76%. CON SIDERING THE FACTS AND SITUATION THIS EFFECTS REDUCTION IS BEYON D IMAGINATION. IN THIS WAY ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT 4.55% LOW ER THAN AS COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR, WHEN THE ACTUAL REDUCTIO N IN BOOKING INCOME WAS 14% (AS MENTIONED ABOVE), AND IF 14% RED UCED FROM THE NET PROFIT OF PREVIOUS YEAR I.E., FROM 5.3 1%, IT WILL COME TO 4.57%. AND THIS MUST BE THE PROFIT OF THE ASSES SEE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ONLY 0.76%. IN THIS WAY, AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT 3.81% LESSER WHICH COMES TO AROUND RS.20,53,076/-, AND THEREBY IT IS ADDED TO THE TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 5 6. THE ASSESSEE THEN CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CLT (A). THE LD. AR HAD MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSION DURING THE APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS: [PARA 17 OF CIT(A)S ORDER] AS FAR AS RECORDS REL ATING TO LORRY HIRE ARE CONCERNED, THE LD. AO HAS FAILED TO UNDERS TAND AND APPRECIATE GROUND REALITIES OF TRANSPORT BUSINESS. THE LORRY HIRE EXPENSES ARE PAID TO THE TRUCK DRIVERS WHO DO NOT H AVE BANK ACCOUNTS, MOREOVER, THEY ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPEL LANT. THE TRUCKS ARE NOT OWNED BY THE APPELLANT; THEREFORE, T HE OUTSIDER TRUCK DRIVERS CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO RECEIVE THE PAY MENT BY CHEQUE. MOREOVER, THE PAYMENT IS MADE TO THE TRUCK DRIVERS ON BEHALF OF THE TRUCK OWNERS WHO ARE DIFFERENT FROM T HE TRUCK DRIVERS AND ALSO NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. WHEN ALL THE VOUCHERS ARE SIGNED BY THE PERSONS RECEIVING THE PA YMENT OF LORRY HIRE ARE AVAILABLE, THIS CANNOT LEAD TO THE R EJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS DEFECT IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. MERE PAYMENT BY CASH IS NOT A GROUND FOR REJECTING BOOKS. IF THE SAID PAYMENT IS PROVED TO BE BOGUS O R IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3), THE DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE ACC ORDING TO THE SAID EXPENSES, BUT, IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS DEFE CT IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD. AO HAS WRONGLY STATED IN PARA 6 ON PAGE 7 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE TOTAL TURNOVER CANNOT DEC REASE DUE TO DECREASE IN THE BOOKING RATE. THIS IS QUITE ILLOGI CAL IN THE SENSE THAT THE TOTAL BOOKING INCOME IS THE SUM TOTAL OF T HE FREIGHT RECEIVED PER CONSIGNMENT DURING THE YEAR. THE FRE IGHT IS THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL WEIGHT MULTIPLIED BY RATE OF BOOKIN G PER KG. IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND NOW THE REDUCTION IN BOOKING RAT E DOES NOT AFFECT THE BOOKING INCOME. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE BOOKING RATE BETWEEN SURAT HYDERABAD ROUTE WA S DECREASED WHICH AFFECTED THE FREIGHT BOOKING INCOME AND RESULTANTLY, IT REDUCED TO SOME EXTENT. THE REASON S FOR DECREASE IN BOOKING RATE AND FREIGHT BOOKING INCOME WERE SUB MITTED TO HIM IN OUR OFFICE LETTER DT. 22.12.2003 WHICH IS RE PRODUCED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGES 4 & 5 OF THE ASST. O RDER. THUS, THE SAID QUERY WAS ALSO EXPLAINED WITH FACTS AND FI GURES THROUGH THE ABOVE LETTER OF SUBMISSION. MOREOVER, THE LD. AO HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT TH E FREIGHT INCOME OF AY 2000-01 ALSO INCLUDED FLEET FREIGHT OF EXCAVATOR MACHINES, WHICH HAD NO RELATION WITH THE LORRY HIRE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THE COMPARISON OF FREIGHT BOOKING INCOME DIRECTLY WITH ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 6 THE LORRY HIRE EXPENSES IS NOT PROPER. THIS FACT W AS LEFT OUT OF THE MIND OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS HE HAS NEVER T RIED TO LOOK INTO THE CALCULATION OF THE SAID RATIO AND GROUPING OF THE INCOME AND EXPENSES. PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED THE STATEMENT S HOWING THE COMPARATIVE PERCENTAGE OF LORRY HIRE EXPENSES WITH FREIGHT INCOME OF LAST TWO YEARS IN ANNEXURE E. ON VERIF ICATION OF THE SAID STATEMENT YOUR HONOUR CAN VERY WELL VERIFY THA T THE LORRY HIRE EXPENSES HAVE INCREASED BY ONLY 1% WHICH IS NOT A MATERIAL INCREASE AS THE EXPENSES CANNOT REMAIN SAME. MOREO VER, IF THE EFFECT OF DECREASE IN FREIGHT RATES IS GIVEN, THE A PPEARING INCREASE OF 1% WILL BE CONVERTED INTO DECREASE. THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN RELYING UPON CASE LAW CITED BY HIM ON PAGE 3 PARA 4 OF THE ASST. ORDER IS IRRELEVANT A S PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION 1 OF S. 145 HAS BEEN OMITTED W.E.F. 1.4 .1997 AND THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON IS OF AY 1984-85. MOREOVER, T HE APPELLANTS CASE IS MUCH DIFFERENT AND HAS NO CONNE CTION WITH THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THERE ARE NO SUCH INFIRMIT IES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH CORRECT INCOME CANNOT BE DED UCED. THEREFORE, THE BOOK RESULT HAS BEEN WRONGLY REJECTE D. 18. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT CO. BESIDES MAKING ABOV E SUBMISSIONS HAD ALSO TRIED TO DIFFERENTIATE THE FAC T OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT CO., WITH THAT OF KESHRICHAND JAISUKH LAL V. CIT 248 ITR 47 AS QUOTED BY THE AO. IN THIS REGARD HE SAID THAT IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF GROOMS AND HAD CLAIMED SHORTAGE WHICH WAS ON HIG HER SIDE AND ITS PURCHASES WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS. H E POINTED OUT FURTHER THAT IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE, THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE RECORDS AND DETAILS ABOUT PARTIES FROM WHICH PURCHASES WERE MADE, AND THUS ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM SUCH PURCHASES WERE MADE. AGAIN, HE MENTIONED THAT IN THE ABOVE R EFERRED CASE, THERE WAS FOUND WIDE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE M ARKET VALUE OF THE PRODUCT ON THE STOCK VALUATION DATE AND THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED . ACCORDING TO HIM (A.R), IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS TH AT THE HONBLE COURT DECIDED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF APPELLANT CO., HE VERY CATEGOR ICALLY STATED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT CO. WER E COMPARABLE TO THAT OF KESHRICHAND JAISUKHLAL V. CIT (SUPRA). ACCO RDING TO HIM, THE APPELLANT CO. MAINTAINED ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALL REQUIRED SLIPS AND VOUCHERS WERE PROPERLY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 7 OF ACCOUNTS AND MAINTAINED AND THE ACTION OF THE AO BY RELYING ON THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE OF REJECTING ITS (APPELL ANT CO.) BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE AT ALL. HE RELIED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE REJ ECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MADE BY THE AO. IN THE CASE OF THE APP ELLANT CO., UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT VALID: (1) SHANKAR RICE CO V. ITO (2000) 72 ITD 139/ 110 TAXMAN (2) GURLAL SINGH TULI V. ACIT (2000) 73 ITR 375 (NA GPUR) (3) AJANTA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD V. ACIT (2001) 116 TAXMAN 220 (JAIPUR) (4) CIBATUL LTD V. DCIT (2001) 118 TAXMAN 28 (AHD) 19. AGAIN THE AR HAD STATED THAT EVEN NON-MA INTENANCE OF DAY-TO-DAY STOCK REGISTER OR PRODUCTION REGISTER W AS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED AS DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A ND FOR THIS HE RELIED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (1) MANOHARLAL V. ITO (2000) 68 TTJ (JODH) 27 (2) GANESH FOUNDRY V. ITO (2000) 67 TTJ (JODH) 434 (3) ACIT V. KHAMBHATA FAMILY TRUST (1998)67 ITD 411 (AHD) 6.1 AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIO NS MADE BY THE LD. AR, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RECORDED FINDINGS THUS: 20. AFTER THE PERUSAL OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO AFTER GOING THROUGH THE D ETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT CO., AN D THE CASE LAWS CITED BY HIM, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE REJECT ION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS MADE BY THE AO AND COMPARING THE NP RAT IO WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNTS THE FACTORS WHICH HAD AFFECTED THE EARNING OF THE APPELLANT CO., IN THE FORM OF FLEET FREIGHT REC EIPTS AND ALSO CERTAIN MAJOR EXPENSES WHICH HAD BEEN INCURRED DURI NG THE YEAR BUT NOT INCURRED IN EARLIER YEAR (SUCH AS KEN MAN P OLICY PREMIUM OF RS.5,77,320/- AND DONATION OF RS.3,50,000/-) ALO NG WITH ENHANCED EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,32,453/- UNDER THE HEA D FINANCE CHARGES IS FOUND ILLEGAL IN THE EYES OF LAW. FEW C ASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AO ARE NOT FOUND APPLICABLE VIS--VIS T HE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT CO. T HE AR HAS VERY CATEGORICALLY STATED ABOUT THE FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR DECLINE IN FREIGHT RECEIPTS AND AT THE SAME TIME IT COULD NOT REDUCE ITS LORRY ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 8 EXPENSES (AS REFERRED ABOVE) AND THE SAME HAS BEEN FOUND FULLY SUPPORTED WITH FACTS AND FIGURES AS REFLECTED IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AR HAD FILED COPIES OF CIRCULARS AS WERE APPROVED BY ITS MAJOR CLIENTS SUCH AS THE HYDERABA D WHOLESALE ART SILK CLOTH MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, WHEREIN THE REDUCTION IN RATE OF FREIGHT CHARGES HAD BEEN CLEARLY SHOWN. TH E AR HAD ALSO DISCUSSED ABOUT THE NATURE OF MAJOR EXPENSES THE AP PELLANT CO., INCURRED DURING THE YEAR. 21. BASED ON THESE FACTS, THE A.R HAD PREPARED A C HART SHOWING THE N.P WORKED OUT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND COMPARED THE SAME WITH THAT OF THE EARLIER YEAR AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE DIFFERENC E IS VERY NOMINAL AND THE SAME IS ACCEPTABLE CONSIDERING THE UPS AND DOWN IN THE BUSINESS. I, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCU SSED FACTS HOLD THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE AO W AS NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND AS A RESULT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.20,53,076/- IS ALSO DELETED AS THE SAM E WAS MADE ON UNSOUND FINDINGS AND ILLOGICAL WORKINGS . 7. DISSATISFIED WITH THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT (A) O N THE ISSUE, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. D R HAD DR AWN THE ATTENTION OF THIS BENCH TO THE FACT THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARAGRAPH 14 HAD STATED THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE A R HAD SUBMITTED A DETAILED CHART SHOWING DETA ILS OF EXPENSES AND RECEIPTS PER TRUCK PER TRIP ALONG WITH OTHER DE TAILS SUCH AS THE WEIGHT OF GOODS TRANSPORTED, TRUCK NOS., AND THE TO TAL LORRY HIRE CHARGES RECEIVED ETC., AND THESE WERE EXAMINED. HOWEVER, IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. D R THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD FAILED TO SEEK COMMENTS OR REMAND REPORT ON THOSE DETAILS FROM THE AO. HE HAD, FURTHER, QUOTED THE LD. ARS CLAIM THAT [PARA 14 O N PAGE 8 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER] .. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING STATED HEREIN ABOVE, IMPOSSIBILITY TO PRODUCE STATEMENTS SHOWING PER TRU CK PROFIT CAN ALSO NOT BE TERMED AS INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE ACCO UNTS WHERE ALL ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 9 THE VOUCHERS, SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF EA CH JOURNEY OF TRUCKS ARE AVAILABLE. MOREOVER, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIB LE BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO PREPARE SUCH RECORDS IN THE FORMAT GIVEN BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER.. AND DISPUTED THAT NO VOUCHERS, SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN EACH JOURNEY OF TRUCKS WERE GIVEN TO T HE AO. WITH REGARD TO THE ASSERTION OF THE LD. A.R BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) (QUOTE) [PARA 14 ON PAGE 9 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER].MOREOVER, THE LEARNE D ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED TO PRODUCE A STATEMENT OF PER TRI P DETAILS IN A PARTICULAR FORMAT DESIGNED BY HIM. IT IS NOT POSSI BLE TO PRODUCE ANY SUCH STATEMENTS WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKS AN D WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BE PREPARED PRACTICALLY THE LD. D.R ARGUED THAT IF THE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, THEN IT W AS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO PRODUCE SUCH A STATEMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO VEHEMENTLY URGED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO IS IN ORDER AND AS SUCH, HE PASSIONATELY URGED THIS BENCH TO FO LLOW THE FINDING OF THE EARLIER BENCH ON THIS POINT. IN CONCLUSION, THE D .R. HAD PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE RULING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA REPORTED IN (2009) 311 ITR 317 (P & H) TO DRIVE HOM E HIS POINT. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HAD REITERATED MORE OR LESS WHAT WAS REPRESENTED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT WAS, FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAS SINCE BE EN EXTENSIVELY ANALYZED AND COMPREHENSIVELY DELIBERATED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN A JUDICIOUS MANNER BY CONCLUDING THAT THE LD. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS A RESULT OF WHICH, ADDITION OF RS.20.53 LAKHS MADE BEING DIFFERENCE IN NET PROFIT. HE HAD STRONGLY OPPOSED THE LD. D RS PLEA TO FOLLOW THE FINDING OF THE EARLIER BENCH ON THIS POINT SINCE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT IN ITS RULING ( SUPRA ) HAD EMPHATICALLY ASSERTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 10 TRIBUNAL WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME WAS QUASH ED AND SET-ASIDE AND TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER DEALING WITH THE FINDI NGS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT (A) AND, IF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WI TH THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE CIT(A), THE REASONS FOR SUCH DISAGREEMENT SH OULD SPECIFICALLY BE REFLECTED IN ITS ORDER. IT WAS, THEREFORE, ARGUED T HAT THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DOESNT SURVIVE AND, THUS, IT CANNOT BE FO LLOWED. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF ( I) JCIT V. SURESH SCRAP INDUSTRIES LTD. [IN ITA NO.855/AHD/1999 DATE D: 2.5.2008] AND (II) CIT V. SURESH SCRAP INDUSTRIES LTD [IN TAX APPEAL NO.1878 OF 2008 DATED 2.3.2010 HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT CASE RECORDS AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCES PRODUCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOKS, BESIDES THE CASE LAWS ON WITH THE RESPECTIVE PARTIE S HAVE PLACED THEIR CONFIDENCE. 8.1. THE MAIN THRUST IN THE STAND OF THE LD. AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED LOG BOOK FOR THE USAGE OF CARS, NO DETAILS OF GROSS PROFIT PER TRUCK AND ALSO NO REASONABLE OR EXPLANA TION OR PROOF WAS ADDUCED FOR HAVING PAID CASH TO TRUCK DRIVERS PER T RIP WHICH HAD RESULTED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO THE P & L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 145(1) OF THE ACT. 8.2. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES FORCEFUL CONTENTION WA S THAT THE LORRY HIRE EXPENSES WERE PAID TO THE TRUCK DRIVERS WHO INSISTE D FOR CASH PAYMENTS SINCE THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY BANKING FACILITIES AND NORMALLY THEY WERE NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE AS THEY WERE NOT THE EMPLOYEE S OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH THEY COULD NOT BE THRUSTED UPON TO ACCE PT THE CHEQUES IN LIEU CASH PAYMENTS. THE HIRE CHARGES IN CASH WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 11 DRIVERS ON BEHALF OF TRUCK OWNERS WHO ARE ALSO NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE HIRE CHARGES WILL BE PAID TO THE DRI VERS AFTER OBTAINING THEIR SIGNATURES IN THE VOUCHERS WHICH ARE AVAILABL E WITH THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THIS CANNOT BE A SOUND REASON TO REJECT THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BRANDING THAT THERE ARE DEFECTS IN THE BOO KS. .AS RIGHTLY HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE BEING A LIMITED COMPANY GOVERNED BY ITS DIRECTORS, MERE PAYMENTS IN CASH IN A GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A SOLID GROUND TO REJECT ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . IF SUCH PAYMENTS IN CASH WERE TO BE P ROVED TO BE A BOGUS CLAIM, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF S. 40A (3) WILL COME INTO FORE, BUT, IT CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED TO BE A MAJOR DEFECT WARRANTING REJE CTION OF ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ITSELF. ANOTHER REASONING OF THE LD. AO WA S THAT THE TOTAL INCOME CANNOT DECREASE IF THERE WERE TO BE DECREASE IN THE BOOKING RATE. THE TOTAL BOOKING INCOME IS THE SUM TOTAL OF THE FREIGH T RECEIVED PER CONSIGNMENT DURING THE YEAR. DURING THE YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE BOOKING RATE BETWEEN SURAT HYDERABAD ROUTE WAS REDUCED WH ICH RESULTED IN DECREASE IN INCOME. AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LD. COUN SEL, DUE TO DECREASE IN RATE OF BOOKING INCOME WHICH HAS A BEARING IN AR RIVING AT THE TOTAL INCOME. MOREOVER, IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, THE FREIG HT INCOME WAS INCLUDED ALSO OF THE FLEET FREIGHT OF EXCAVATOR MAC HINES OF RS.18.33 LAKHS WHICH HAD NO RELATION TO LORRY HIRE EXPENSES. THUS , THE COMPARISON OF FREIGHT BOOKING INCOME DIRECTLY WITH LORRY HIRE EXP ENSES IS NOT PROPER. TO ILLUSTRATE FURTHER, WE SHALL LOOK AT THE WORKING OF PERCENTAGE OF LORRY-HIRE EXPENSES WITH FREIGHT BOOKING INCOME AS UNDER: A.Y 2001-02 A.Y. 2000-01 FREIGHT BOOKING (EXCLUDING DELIVERY CLEARING AND (A) RS.5,21,93,913 RS.4,95,68,366 LORRY HIRE EXPENSES (B) RS.3,53,02,571 RS.3,30,26,513 PERCENTAGE (A)/(B) X 100 67.64% 66.63% (COURTESY: P 26 OF PB) ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 12 ON VERIFICATION OF STATEMENT SHOWING COMPARATIVE P ERCENTAGE OF LORRY HIRE EXPENSES WITH FREIGHT INCOME OF PRECEDING YEAR WHICH CLEARLY ATTRIBUTES THAT THE HIRE EXPENSES HAVE INCREASED BY HARDLY 1%. 8.3. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE REASONS ADDUCED BY THE LD. AO SUPRA , THE LD. CIT (A) WAS OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ( AT THE COST OF REPETITION ) (PARA 20).I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE REJECTION O F BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS MADE BY THE AO AND COMPARING THE NP RAT IO WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNTS THE FACTORS WHICH HAD AFFECTED THE EARNING OF THE APPELLANT CO., IN THE FORM OF FLEET FREIGHT REC EIPTS AND ALSO CERTAIN MAJOR EXPENSES WHICH HAD BEEN INCURRED DURI NG THE YEAR BUT NOT INCURRED IN EARLIER YEAR (SUCH AS KEN MAN P OLICY PREMIUM OF RS.5,77,320/- AND DONATION OF RS.3,50,000/-) ALO NG WITH ENHANCED EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,32,453/- UNDER THE HEA D FINANCE CHARGES IS FOUND ILLEGAL.. 8.4. MOREOVER, THE LD. COUNSEL WAS CATEGORICAL IN H IS AFFIRMATION THAT THE FACTS RESPONSIBLE FOR DECLINE IN FREIGHT RECEIP TS, BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, IT COULD NOT REDUCE ITS LORRY HIRE EXPENSES WHICH A RE FULLY SUPPORTED WITH FACTS AND FIGURES AS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS. 8.5 CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENCE BEING NOMINAL AN D ALSO POSSIBILITY OF UPWARD AND DOWNWARD TREND IN THE TRANSPORTATION BUS INESS, THE LD. CIT (A) VIEWED THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND AS A RESULT OF W HICH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.20,53,076/- WAS ALSO DELETED AS THE SAME WAS MADE ON UNSOUND FINDINGS AND ILLOGICAL WORKINGS. LET US NOW HAVE A GLIMPSE AT THE JUDICIAL VIEWS ON THE ISSUE: (A) BRIJ MOHAN BANSAL V. ITO (2009) 311 ITR 317 (P & H) : THE ISSUE, IN BRIEF, WAS THAT THE AO REJECTED THE A SSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN VIEW OF STEEP DECLINE IN GP RATE AND ABSENCE OF COMPLETE RECORDS AND, THUS, ESTIMATED THE PROFIT BY APPLYING GP RATE OF 10% ON TRADING TURNOVER. ON APPEAL, THE CI T (A) ALLOWED ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 13 PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY REDUCING THE GP RATE WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF NON-MAINTENANCE O F RECORD OF PURCHASES, NON-VERIFIABILITY OF SALES, ABSENCE OF S TOCK REGISTER AND LOW PROFIT/GP RATE. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS A POSS IBLE VIEW AND NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT WARRANT ANY INTERFERENCE. WITH DUE REGARDS, WE WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT T HE RULING OF THE HONBLE COURT IS ON THE DIFFERENT FOOTING WHICH HA S NO RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE ON HAND IN THE SENSE THAT IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEES BOOKS WERE REJECTED IN VIEW OF STEEP DECLINE IN GP RATE AND ALSO ABSENCE OF COMPLETE RECORDS WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED, BUT, ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED CERTAIN DETAILS AND THUS, THE AO RESORTED TO REJECT IT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CANNOT BE CATEGORIZED AS ABSENCE OF COMPLETE RECORDS. THEREFO RE, THE REVENUE CANNOT TAKE REFUGE IN THIS CASE LAW TO SUPP ORT ITS CASE. (B) JCIT V. SURESH SCRAP INDUSTRIES LTD. ITA NO.855/A HD/1999 DT: 2.5.2008: THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY, ARE THAT THE AO RE JECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION IN TH E GP OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ISSUE WAS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A ) WHO ACCEPTED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE TAKEN AGAINST THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUST IFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE IN GP WAS ALSO DELETED. THE REVENUE, SELECTIVELY, TOOK UP THE ISSUE WHICH R ELATES TO THE ADDITION IN THE GP WAS CONCERNED AND ARGUED THAT T HE AO HAD ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 14 CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED CERTAIN ASPECTS SUCH AS CO MPARATIVE PROFIT/LOSS POWER CONSUMPTION TARIFF RATES AND TAX ES ETC., WHICH WERE NEITHER PROPERTY APPRECIATED BY THE CIT (A) NO R THE AO WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORWARD HIS VIEWS ON TH E ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) CANNOT BE TERMED AS SPEAKING O RDER AND IT SUFFERS FROM THIS LIMITATION, IT IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE. IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE DULY AUDI TED AND ALSO MAINTAINED WITH QUANTITATIVE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF STOCK AND ALSO STOCK RECORDS WERE SUBJECTED TO VERIFICATION BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE CIT (A) HAD GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS NOT CORRECT AND EVEN NO BASIS OF ESTIMATING THE GP AT 18%. THE REV ENUE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY GROUND AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IN REJECTION OF BOOKS TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE AO AND THAT WITHOUT RE JECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NO ADDITION IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT CAN BE MADE. CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE TRIBUNAL HAD OBSERVED THUS: 5 WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE AO OF REJECTING THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT. THE CIT (A) FOUND THE ACTION OF THE AO ABOUT REJECTION OF THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO BE UNJUSTIFIED AND DIRECTED THE AO NOT TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145 OF THE ACT. EVEN HE HELD THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AO TO MAKE ESTIMATE WITH OUT THE BASIS WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REPRESENT CORRECT AND TRUE PICTURE. THE REVENUE HAS ALTHOUGH CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FALL IN THE GROSS PROFIT BUT DID NOT TAKE ANY GROUND AGAINST THE DIRECTION O F THE CIT (A) NOT TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145. I N VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY OR INFIR MITY IN THE ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 15 ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AS IN THE ABSENCE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE AO, IN OUR OPINION, CANNOT MAKE AN Y ADDITION IN THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. ON A REFERENCE APPLICATION U/S 260A OF THE ACT BEFO RE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE REVENUE HAD RAISED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RIGHT IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) AND THER EBY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.54,38,457/- BY ADOPTING AD HOC GP OF 5% THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCOUNTED G P RATE @ 5% AS AGAINST COMPARABLE GP RATE OF 7.8% CONSIDERIN G INCREASE IN VARIOUS COSTS RELIED UPON BY THE CIT (A ) ? AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, THE HONBLE COURT HAS RULED THUS: 6. THE ENTIRE APPEAL PROCEEDS ON A MISCONCEPTION. EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE AN AS PECT OF GROSS PROFIT ADDITION BUT IT IS THE OTHER WAY ROUND . ONLY AFTER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED FOR ANY OF THE REASONS PROVIDED BY SECTION 145 OF THE ACT WOULD THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BE ABLE TO MAKE ESTIMATE OF PROFITS. EVEN ON FACTS, W HEN ONE CONSIDERS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE TRIBUNAL, AS RECORDED IN PARA GRAPH NO.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02 ND MAY, 2008, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT AT NO STAGE WAS IT EVER URGED THAT COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) HAD WRONGLY CANCELLED REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 7. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN ABSENCE OF ANY ERROR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, NO QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF T RIBUNAL. IN ESSENCE, THE STAND OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN NOT JUS TIFYING THE AOS ACTION IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND MAKING ADDITION IN GP GETS VINDICATED . 8.5. IN OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE AS DISCUSSED IN THE FORE-GOING PARAGRAPHS AND ALSO IN CONFORMITY WITH THE JUDICIAL VIEWS IN A SIMILAR MATTER REFERRED SUPRA , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT ( I) THE LD. AO WAS ITA NO. 2372-AHD-04 16 NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND (II) INCREASING IN NET PROFIT BY MEANS OF RS.20,53,076/-. ACCORDINGLY, TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS SUSTAINED . 9. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 2 1 + 0'& 3#!' 29 / 12 /2011 ' 4 + . 5 SD/- SD/- (D.K.TYAGI) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED : 29/12/2011 1 1 1 1 + ++ + */6 */6 */6 */6 76&/' 76&/' 76&/' 76&/' - 1. () 2. *() 3. !! / -8 4. -8 - - 5. 69 */# , , 5 6. :2 1 , ; / !< , 5 TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S .