Kalyanjee Saree Wale (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. CIT, Meerut

ITA 3336/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 333620114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SULEKHA VERMA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. V. MEHROTRA, AM AND SH. JOGINDER SIN GH, JM ITA NO. 3336/DEL/2013 : ASS TT. YEAR : 2008-09 KALYANJEE SAREE WALE (P) LTD. C/O- KAPIL GOEL ADV. A-1/25, SECTOR-15, ROHINI DELHI-110085 VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEERUT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AACCK2651C ASSESSEE BY : SH. KAPIL GOEL, ADV. REVENUE BY : MS. SULEKHA VERMA , DR DATE OF HEARING : 7.8.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.8.2014 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 21.3.2013 OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER INVOKING REVISIONAL JURISDI CTION U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL WE HAVE HEARD SHRI KAPIL GOEL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND MS. SULEKHA VERMA, LD. DR. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT A WELL REASONED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TOO AFTER DUE EXAMINATION OF RECORD AND OTHER FACTS, THEREFORE, INVOKING OF R EVISIONAL JURISDICTION BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. OUR ATTEN TION WAS INVITED TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS ARGUED THAT MY BOOKS WERE NOT ITA NO. 3336/DEL/2013 KALYANJEE SAREE WALE (P) LTD. 2 REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. OUR ATTENTION WA S INVITED TO PAGES 24, 27 AND 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS ASSERTED THAT I T MAY BE A CASE OF INADEQUATE INQUIRY BUT NOT THE CASE THAT NO INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DEC ISION IN ITA NO. 79/2014, THE CASE OF HULAS RAHUL GUPTA, ORDER DATED 26.2.2014 CIT VS DLF LTD. 350 ITR 555 AND SPECTRA SAREES AND SCRIPTS PVT. LTD. VS CIT 354 ITR 35 (AP). PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT THE ONLY GROUND ON WHICH REVISIONAL JURISDICTION WAS INVOKED IS LOWER NET PR OFIT RATE, THEREFORE, WHILE COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LOOKED INTO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE C ASE WHICH IS ALREADY DISCUSSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT WHILE INVOKING RE VISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE LD. COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS QUITE LOW AND ALSO THERE IS A DE CLINE IN NET PROFIT IN COMPARISON TO LAST YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION FR OM HONBLE APEX COURT IN M/S MALABAR INDUSTRIES, THE LD. CIT FOUND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WHILE COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS. THE RELEVANT PORTION AND THE OBS ERVATION MADE THEREIN IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER:- ITA NO. 3336/DEL/2013 KALYANJEE SAREE WALE (P) LTD. 3 8. DURING THE COURSE OF 263 PROCEEDINGS, THE ID. C OUNSEL WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW SUCH BUSINESS RESULTS AR E ACCEPTABLE AND TO GET THEM VERIFIED IF THE SAME ARE VERIFIABLE FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE ALSO ASKED TO BE PRODUCED VID E NOTICE DATED 15.2.2013 FOR PRODUCING THE SAME ON 27.2.2013 BUT THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED. AGAIN ON 27.2.2013, IT WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCE D ON THE GIVEN DATE I.E. ON 27.2.2013. HOWEVER, AGAIN ON THE NEXT DATE I.E. ON 4.3.2013, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED OR FURNISHED WHILE YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVE N TO PRODUCE THE SAME ALONG WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE , IF ANY, REGARDING THE LOW PROFITS APART FROM OTHER POINTS R AISED IN THE NOTICE AND THE ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT AND ACCORDING LY GRANTED FOR 5.3.2013 AS DESIRED. HOWEVER, AGAIN ON 5.3.2013 THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT PRODUCED. APART FROM NON PRODUCTIO N OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TIME AND AGAIN T O EXPLAIN ITS LOW PROFITS BUT APAT1 FROM THE EXPLANATION GIVEN AN D DISCUSSED ABOVE, NO OTHER EXPLANATION OR ANY DOCUMENT OR MATE RIAL IN SUPPORT OF ANY CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD WAS FURNIS HED. SO FAR AS THE CORRECTNESS OF BUSINESS RESULTS ARE C ONCERNED, THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SHOWN AS TAX AUDIT ED AND THE COPY OF TAX AUDIT REPORT PLACED IN THE ASSESSMENT R ECORDS. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T AS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INCOMPLETE FROM WHIC H THE ACTUAL PROFITS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DEDUCED, A SCERTAINED OR VERIFIED. SOME OF THE DISCREPANCIES NOTICED WHICH RENDERED TH E BOOKS OF A/CS LIABLE FOR REJECTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I) AS PER THE TAX AUDITOR'S REPORT IN FORM 3CD THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED ARE ONLY CASH BOOK AND LEDGER WH ICH MEANS THAT ALL THE INCOMES AND EXPENSES ARE UNVOUCHED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY REGISTERS, RECORDS AND ITA NO. 3336/DEL/2013 KALYANJEE SAREE WALE (P) LTD. 4 DOCUMENTS INCLUDING STOCK REGISTER, STOCK INVENTORI ES ETC. FROM WHICH GP AND THE OTHER ACCOUNTS COULD BE VERIFIED. II) TAX AUDITORS UNDER THE HEAD LIST OF BOOKS OF A CCOUNT EXAMINED HAVE REITERATED THAT ONLY CASH BOOK AND L EDGER HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND THE EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THE SAM E COULD BE EXAMINED AND VERIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT BI LLS, VOUCHERS ETC. IS NOT AVAILABLE. III) IN PARA 28(A) OF FORM 3CD, THE TAX AUDIT REPOR T, WHICH IS SIGNED BY ONE DIRECTOR MS MANISHA JAIN, IT IS STATE D THAT THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ARE AS PER ANNEXURE-1. HOWEVER , THERE IS NO ANNEXURE-L IN THE ENTIRE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND FINAL ACCOUNTS. VIDE REPLY DATED 10.6.2010 TO UNANSWERED QUERIES RA ISED THROUGH SECTION 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 28.1.2010, THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA-15 OF THE SAID LE TTER HAS STATED AS UNDER: '15. INVENTORY OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK (BOTH QUANTITATIVELY AS WELL AS QUALITATIVELY) FOR EACH I TEM SEPARATELY. ALSO GIVE BASIS OF VALUATION OF STOCK. THE DETAIL OF THIS QUERY IS VERY EXHAUSTIVE AND MY ASSESSEE NEEDS MORE TIME TO COMPLY (ACTUALLY COMPILE) THE SA ME. HOWEVER THE VALUE WISE DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS: PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) OPENING STOCK 1,16,28,138.00 CLOSING STOCK 1,17,78,948.00 IV) THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) ON 28 .01.2010 WHEREBY SEVERAL QUERIES WERE RAISED. REGARDING FURN ISHING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DETAILS OF STOCK INVEN TORIES VIDE REPLY DATED 03.06.2010 IT ANSWERED- 'THE ANSWER TO THIS Q UESTION WILL FURNISH IN NEXT OPPORTUNITY.' ITA NO. 3336/DEL/2013 KALYANJEE SAREE WALE (P) LTD. 5 V) IT IS REITERATED THE BOOKS OF A/CS WERE NOT PROD UCED DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN IN THIS REGARD. THIS F URTHER CONFIRMS BEYOND ANY ARENA OF DOUBT THAT THE STATEMENT MADE B Y THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, CA SANJEEV DEWAN TO THE CO NTRARY, THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS RELATING TO ENTIRE INVENTORY O F OPENING AND CLOSING STOCKS WERE NOT EVEN COMPILED EVEN AFTER AB OUT TWO YEARS FROM TAX AUDIT I.E. TILL 10.6.2010 WHEREAS THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IS SIGNED AND CERTIFIED ON 2.9.2008. IN THE REPLY IT I S CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT SUCH EXHAUSTIVE DETAILS NEED MORE TI ME TO COMPILE THE SAME WHEREAS THE VALUE WISE DETAILS ONL Y WERE FURNISHED. THIS PRIMA FACIE PROVES ON ONE HAND, THE INCORRECTNESS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT CERTIFIED DAT ED 2.9.2008 WHERE THE QUA1TITATIVE STOCK INVENTORIES WERE STATE D TO HAVE BEEN ENCLOSED AS PER ANNEXURE-L WHICH WERE, HOWEVER, NOT ACTUALLY ENCLOSED WHILE, ON THE OTHER, NO SUCH QUANTITATIVE DETAILS WERE MAINTAINED OR COMPILED EVEN TILL 10.6.2010. INCIDEN TALLY, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT RELEVANT FOR TH E PERIOD ENDING 31.3.2010 RELEVANT FOR A. Y. 2010-11 HAS ALSO BEEN PERUSED FROM THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT RECORDS WHICH GAVE THE SIMI LAR PICTURE I.E. PARA 28(A) OF TAX AUDIT REPORT DATED 28.8.2010 STATED THAT THE SAID REPORT IS AT ANNEXURE-2 WHEREAS OUT ALL THE AN NEXURES, ANNEXURE-2 WAS MISSING. VI) ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE, IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR A ND EVIDENT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE MAINTAINED IN SUCH A MANNER FROM WHICH TRUE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ASCERTAINABLE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THEREFORE, ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT CORRECT AND COMPLETE. THE SAME ARE, THEREFORE, REJECTED UNDER S ECTION 145(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND THE PROFITS OF THE ASSESS EE ARE ASCERTAINED AND DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AN D MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS IN THIS CASE SUPPORT REJECTION OF BOOKS UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 3336/DEL/2013 KALYANJEE SAREE WALE (P) LTD. 6 IT IS TRUE THAT ABSENCE OF THE STOCK REGISTER OR C ASH MEMOS IN A GIVEN SITUATION MAY NOT PER SE LEAD TO AN INFE RENCE THAT THE ACCOUNTS ARE FALSE OR INCOMPLETE. HOWEVER, WHERE TH E ABSENCE OF A STOCK REGISTER, CASH MEMOS, ETC., IS COUPLED WITH OTHER FACTORS LIKE VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES AND PURCHA SES MADE NOT BEING FORTHCOMING AND THE PROFITS BEING LOW, MAY GI VE RISE TO A LEGITIMATE INFERENCE THAT ALL IS NOT WELL WITH THE BOOKS AND THE SAME, CANNOT BE RELIED UPON TO ASSESS THE INCOME, P ROFITS OR GAINS OF AN ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE AUTH ORITIES WOULD BE JUSTIFIED TO REJECT THE ACCOUNT BOOKS UNDER SECTION 145(2) [AWADHESH PRATAP SINGH ABDU REHMAN & BROS. V. CIT, (1994) 210 ITR 406, 408 (ALL). WHERE THERE WAS NO QUANTITATIVE TALLY OF OPENING S TOCK AND PURCHASES WITH SALES AND CLOSING STOCK, THE BES T COURSE TO FOLLOW WOULD BE TO REJECT THE BOOKS RESULT AND TO E STIMATE THE BUSINESS INCOME UNDER SECTION 145(2) [RAINBOW METAL S (INDIA), IN RE, (1995) 83 TAXMAN 160, 166 (ITSC, BOM)] THE ABSENCE OF QUANTITATIVE TALLY OF PURCHASES AND SALES ADDED WITH UNEXPLAINED LOWNESS OF GROSS PROFIT RATE IS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL TO ATTRACT APPLICATION OF THE FIRST PROVIS O TO SECTION 145(1) [DHONDIRAM DALICHAND V. CIT, (1971) 81 ITR 6 09 (BOM). THE PATNA HIGH COURT, IN RAM CHANDA SINGH RAMNIK L AL V. CIT [(1961) 42 ITR 780] HAS, HOWEVER, SUSTAINED REJECTION OF ACCOUNT OF AN EARTH EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR (WITHOUT REFERRING TO PANDIT BROS.S CASE) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT MAINTAINED A STOCK REGISTER AND HAD NOT ACCOUNTED F OR MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR, NOT MAINTAINED A REGIST ER FOR WORK- IN-PROGRESS. AS HAS BEEN STATED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROD UCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVE N IN THIS REGARD AND, MOREOVER, THE INCOMPLETENESS AND DISCRE PANCIES ITA NO. 3336/DEL/2013 KALYANJEE SAREE WALE (P) LTD. 7 INCLUDING IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT DATED 2.9.2008 AR E POINTED OUT AS ABOVE. 4. IF THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, LD. DR AND THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD ARE KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYZED, WE N OTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TRADING IN THE BUSINESS OF SAREES DECLARED INCOM E OF RS. 1,48,857/- IN ITS RETURN FILED ON 27.9.2008 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U /S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THEREFORE , THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS EE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED THE DET AILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 19.68% ON TH E SALES OF RS. 2,84,40,958 AGAINST THE SALE OF RS. 2,77,00,870/-, SHOWING GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 17.37% IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- SIMPLY TO C OVER UP LEAKAGE WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4.1 THE LD. COMMISSIONER BEFORE INVOKING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAS TO SATISFY HIMSELF ABOUT TWO PRE REQUISITES. FIRSTLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I.T.O MUST BE ERRONEOUS AND SEC ONDLY THE ERROR MUST BE SUCH THAT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF R EVENUE. IF THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF RE VENUE, THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT EXERCISE THE REVISIONAL JURISDI CTION U/S 263(1) OF THE ACT. AN ERRONEOUS ORDER DOES NOT MEAN A WRONG O RDER. IT IS NECESSARY ITA NO. 3336/DEL/2013 KALYANJEE SAREE WALE (P) LTD. 8 FOR THE LD. COMMISSIONER TO POINT OUT THE EXACT ERR OR IN THE ORDER WHICH HE PROPOSES TO REVISE SO THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HA VE AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF MEETING OUT THOSE ERROR BEFORE THE F INAL ORDER IS MADE. CERTAINLY OMISSION TO MAKE INQUIRY IS AN ERROR. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS EXAMINED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND FOUND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND FOUND THE FRAMED ASSESSMENT AS UNACCEPTABLE AND OBSERVED THAT IN RETAIL TRADING OF SAREES AND DRESS MATERIAL, THE GROSS PROFIT IS UPTO 50%, HOWEVER, HE FOUND THE GROSS PROFIT ON LOWEST POSSIBLE SIDE, THU S, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT. THE AG GRIEVED ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BROADLY WE ARE IN AG REEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERY LOW, THERE FORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT CERTAINLY PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE TRUE FACTS AND EVEN HAS NOT COMPARED THE LIKE B USINESS OF OTHER ASSESSEE AND MERELY ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN A CELEBRATED CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRI ES COMPANY LTD. 243 ITR 83 CLEARLY HELD THAT IN CORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR IN CORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. IT IS CLEARLY OOZING OUT THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER MERELY ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE A LUMP SUMP ADDITI ON OF RS. 1,50,000/- . EVEN THE ASSESSEE VALUED OPENING AND CLOSING INVE NTORIES ON LUMP ITA NO. 3336/DEL/2013 KALYANJEE SAREE WALE (P) LTD. 9 SUMP BASIS. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED IN SLIP SHOT MANNER AND MERELY IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURN ISHED THE REQUIRED DETAILS. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O VERIFY THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEN WAS EXPECTED TO REACH TO A CONCLUSION AND HE SIMPLY IGNORED THE TRUE FACTS AND ACCEPTED T HE NET PROFIT RATE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN DID NOT CONSIDER PREVAILING MARKET SITUATION. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS W HERE IT IS FOUND THAT PROPER AND DUE INQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND DUE TAX HAS NOT BEEN COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE. I T IS ALSO NOTED THAT ON SEEING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 0.31% THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN THE REVISIONA L ORDER THAT THERE WAS DECLINE IN NET PROFIT RATE IN COMPARISON TO LAST YE AR AND AT THE SAME TIME IT WAS EXTREMELY LOW. EVEN OTHERWISE IN THE RETAIL TRADING OF SAREES AND DRESS MATERIAL SUCH A LOW NET PROFIT RATE CANNOT BE EXPECTED UNDER THE PREVAILING MARKET SITUATION. ANOTHER POINT INTEREST ING TO BE NOTED THAT DURING REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKE D AS TO WHY THE BOOK RESULTS MAY NOT BE REJECTED, HOWEVER, IN SPITE OF R EPEATED ASKING BY LD. CIT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED AS IS E VIDENT FROM PARA 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADDUCE ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING LOW PROFIT RATE. I N VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE HELD TO BE NOT COMPL ETE AND THUS, THE ACTUAL PROFIT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED. THE REASON FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT PARA 8 ONWARDS OF THE IMPUGNED ITA NO. 3336/DEL/2013 KALYANJEE SAREE WALE (P) LTD. 10 ORDER. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE OBSERVATION MADE I N PARA 8(VI) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINT AINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH A MANNER FROM WHICH THE DUE PROFIT WOULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED. WE ARE AWARE THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF CON SISTENCY MUST BE FOLLOWED BEFORE INVOKING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION BU T AT THE SAME TIME IT IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT THAT MISTAKE CANNOT BE PERPETUATE D, MORE SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IF THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY I.T.O BRINGS LESSER REVENUE TH EN SOME OTHER PROCEDURE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I.T.O WOULD OBVIO USLY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE AND WOULD GIVE JURISDICTION TO THE L D. COMMISSIONER U/S 263 AS WAS HELD IN CIT VS PUSHPA DEVI 164 ITR 639 ( PAT) AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN BISMILLAH TRADING COMPANY VS I.O (2001) 248 ITR 292 (KERALA). HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS M. M. KHAMBHATWALA 198 ITR 144 EVEN WENT TO THE EXTENT TH AT REVISIONAL POWER CAN BE EXERCISE EVEN IF THE ISSUE IS DEBATABL E. THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CLEARLY INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE BOOK RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTABLE, THEREF ORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE ORDER UNDE R APPEAL. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE UNSECURED LOAN ALSO REMAINED TO BE E XAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE AFFIRM THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER INVOKING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION. 5. FINALLY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3336/DEL/2013 KALYANJEE SAREE WALE (P) LTD. 11 6. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.8.2014. SD/- SD/- (S. V. MEHROTRA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14/8/2014 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 11.8.2014 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11.8.2014 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.