ITO, PALI V. Smt. Chandrakanta Dani, PALI

ITA 57/JODH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5279 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L MOURYA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.57/JODH/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, ROOM NO.08, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MANDIA ROAD, PALI VS. SMT. CHANDRAKANTA DANI, M/S. AGARWAL ENTERPRISES, GUD KHAND KATLA, ZARDA BAZAR, PALI PAN :AAWPD3946Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI S. L. MOURYA, DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN, AR DATE OF HEARING: 14.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.03.16 O R D E R PER: GEORGE MATHAN, J.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A)-I, JODHPUR PASSED IN APPEAL NO.291/2011 - 2 012 DATED 09-12-2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. SHRI S. L. MOURYA, LEARNED DR REPRESENTED ON BEH ALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN, LEARNED AR REPRESENTED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT IN THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FALL IN GROSS PROFIT. IT WA S A SUBMISSION THAT THE 2 ITA NO.57/JODH/2015 ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN KIRANA I TEMS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 1.25% BY MAKING COMPARISON OF ARIHANT TRADING CO., JODHPUR. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS REVERSED TH E FINDINGS OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HA S DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION BY ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. H E VEHMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 14 PARA 4.2 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAD ADMITT EDLY COMPARE THE ASSESSEES CASE WITH ARIHANT TRADING WHOSE DETAILS ITSELF WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. ON PERUSAL O F THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) SHOWS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS REVERSED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE BOOKS ARE AUDITED BOOKS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE REJECTED IN A ROUTINE MANNER. A PERU SAL OF THE ORDER OF THE AO SHOWS THAT NO SPECIFIC DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED O UT BY THE AO. CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT REJECTION OF BOOK DONE BY HIM IS 3 ITA NO.57/JODH/2015 UNSUSTAINABLE AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS IN RIGHT IN REJECTING THE SAME. FURTHER A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT ( A) SHOWS THAT THE AO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY COMPARATIVE CASE DETAILS TO THE ASSES SEE FOR HER REBUTTAL. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAD DELETED THE E STIMATION. WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON THI S ISSUE ALSO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.03.2016. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR, DATED: 14 TH MARCH, 2016 LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (A) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 14.03.16 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 14 .03.16 S R.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 15.03.16 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 15 .03.16 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 15.03.16 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.03.16 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER