DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Combi Enterprises, New Delhi

ITA 6003/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3677 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.6003/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 DY. C.I.T., VS. M/S COMBI ENTERPRISES, CIRCLE 22(1), F-89/22, OKHLA INDL. AREA, NEW DELHI PHASE-I, NEW DELHI PAN NO.AAAFC 4048 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL,AM: FOLLOWING FOUR GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENU E IN THIS APPEAL:- I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES BEING 1% OF TOTAL PURCHASE OF `15,68,47,135/- I.E. `15,68,471/-. II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF FABRICATION EXPENSES BEING 1% OF TOTAL FABRICATION EXPENSES OF `2,49,57,373/- I.E. `2,49,573/-. III) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LABELS AND STICKERS BEING 1% OF TOTAL LABEL AND STICKERS EXPENSES OF `37,50,993/- I.E. 37,510/-. IV) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND 2 ON THE FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF FINISHING CHARGES BEING 1% OF TOTAL FINISHING CHARGES OF `4,43,246/- I.E. `4,432/-. 1.1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN ON 30.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF `1,61,31,060/- . THE RETURN WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ON 31.01.2009 AND THEREAFTER STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 23.09.2008 FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF CUSHION COVERS, CU RTAINS ETC. IT HAS SHOWN TURN OVER OF ABOUT `22.59 CRORES. THE GROSS P ROFIT RATIO AND THE NET PROFIT RATIO TO THE TURN OVER HAVE BEEN SHOW N AS 20.72% AND 6.8% RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE LEARNED DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE FIN DINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT (I) THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED DET AILS OF OPENING STOCK AND CLOSING STOCK BUT DAY-WISE STOCK DETAI LS HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED; AND (II) DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND IN RESPECT OF CONSUMPTION ETC. RELATING TO FOUR EXPORT INVOICES IN TERMS OF DIFFERING GROSS PROFITS, PURCHASE INVOICE BEING DATED SUBSEQUENT TO THE SALE INVOICE ETC. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCREPANCIES, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DISALLOWED 1% OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER FIVE HEA DS, LEADING TO ADDITION OF `19,23,454/- TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFINED HIMSELF ONLY TO THE DISCREPANCIES NOTED IN RESPECT OF FOUR EXPORT INVOICES AND THEREAFTER DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT EXAMINE THE WHOLE O F THE MATTER INCLUDING NON-MAINTENANCE OF DAY-TO-DAY STOCK OF VAR IOUS ITEMS. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS URGED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 3 3. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERR ED TO THE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN RESPECT OF FOUR SPEC IFIC DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE BASIS OF TH ESE FACTUAL FINDINGS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON SUSPICION AND THERE WAS NO OBJE CTIVE BASIS FOR REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREAFTER, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) ALSO CONSIDERED THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO SHOWN IN THIS YEAR LAST YEAR WHICH HAS IMPROVED FROM 16.43% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TO 20.7 2% IN THIS YEAR. THUS, HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS NO T JUSTIFIED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOK RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE H AVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT MADE FOR IMMEDIATELY SUCC EEDING YEAR, AS SEEN FROM PAGE NO.1 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT I S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO IN THIS AND IMMEDIATELY FO R PRECEDING YEARS VARIES BETWEEN 16.43% AND 20.72%. THUS, THE RATIO WA S THE HIGHEST IN THIS YEAR. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE BUSINESS OF T HE ASSESSEE, WHERE A LARGE NUMBER OF ITEMS ARE CONSUMED, EXACT CO- RELATION BETWEEN THE ITEMS CONSUMED AND ITEMS MANUFACTURED IS NO T POSSIBLE. THIS CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACC OUNT. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS AGITATED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED I N DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT N O DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AS NO DEFECT WAS FOUND IN THE BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE MAINTAINED ITEM-WISE T ALLY ON A DAILY BASIS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE BOOK RESULTS. 5. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE MAY REPRODUCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER:- 4. I HAVE PERUSED THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REPLY OF THE AR ON THE SAME. IT IS 4 SEEN THAT DOUBT EXPRESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHETHER THE CLOTH WAS PURCHASED OR PIECES WERE PURCHASE D SHOULD NOT HAVE ARISEN AS THE PERUSAL OF INVOICES OF AASE E EXPORTS MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT CUT PIECES ARE MENTIONED AND HAVE BEEN BOUGHT. THEREFORE, THE DISCREPANCY AS POINTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD IS NOT VALID. THE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE FA BRICATION BILL BEING DATED 30.05.2006 AND CORRESPONDING EXPORT INVOICE ON 18.05.2006 IS LOGICAL AS THE GOODS ARE GENE RALLY RECEIVED ON CHALLAN AND FINAL INVOICE FOLLOWS. THE GENUINENESS OF EITHER THE EXPORT OR THE FABRICATION H AS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LABEL QUANTITY FROM N.K. BEING 1,400 INSTEAD OF THE NUMBER OF PIECES EXPORTED AT 1340 IS ALSO NOT RELEVANT GROUND AS THE LABELS COULD ALWAYS BE IN EXCESS OF THE FINISHED PIECES SO AS TO TAKE CARE OF WASTAGE AND DAMAGED LABELS. THE TH IRD OBSERVATION THAT SALE INVOICE NO.3626 AND 3627CONTAIN ED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ITEMS AT 15570 AND PURCHASE WAS ON LY 15530 IS ALSO FACTUALLY INCORRECT AS EXAMINED DURING T HE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE PURCHASE OF LABE LS NUMBERING 43500 IN EXCESS OF THE CURRENT EXPORT INVOI CE OF 15570 IS ALSO MEANT FOR EXPORTS TO BE MADE UNDER DIFFE RENT INVOICES AND NOT ONLY FOR THE PARTICULAR INVOICE POI NTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LASTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSERVATION THAT MAJOR PURCHASES HAVE BEEN SHOWN FROM AASEE EXPORTS AND MILAN TEXTILES HAVING THE SAME ADDRESS AND THE ENTIRE SALES OF THESE CONCERNS ARE TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS NO BASIS TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRIES TO BEIN G ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM ARE INFLATED OR BOGUS. IN FACT, TH E ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSERVATION THAT THEIR PROFITS WERE NEGLIGIBLE GOES AGAINST THE LOGIC AS ONLY INFLATED PUR CHASES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WOULD LEAD TO SUPPRESSION OF PROFITS. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD IS MERE SUSPICION AND AS SUCH, CANNOT BE A LOGICAL BASIS TO REJECT BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS. 5. I HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE GP RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS AND IT IS SEEN THAT IT HAS IMPROVED FROM 16.43% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TO 20.72% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSERVATION ON PAGE 1 OF HIS ORDER THA T THE GP RATE OF ASSESSEE IS CONSTANT FOR LAST FEW YEARS IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORD. AS SUCH, THE REJECTI ON OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE BASIS OF OBSERVATIONS MADE BY 5 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS O F PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 AND THE CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANC E MADE IS DELETED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIO NS MADE BEFORE US. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTIONED DISCREPANCIES ON TWO COUNTS, WHICH CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- I) DAY-TO-DAY AND ITEM-WISE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF V ARIOUS ITEMS HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED; AND II) THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES IN RESPECT OF FOUR EXPORT BILLS WHEN COMPARED WITH CORRESPONDING PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF QUANTITIES, GROSS PROFIT RATIO AND DAT ES. 6.1 THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF HIS FINDINGS O N THE DISCREPANCIES? 6.2 IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OMAX SHO E FACTORY VS. CIT, (2006) 281 ITR 268. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED CONSUMPTION REGISTER FOR RAW MATER IAL AND PRODUCTION REGISTER OF THE MANUFACTURED GOODS. IT WA S ALSO FOUND THAT PROPER ACCOUNTS RELATING TO PAYMENT OF WAGES HAD NOT BEEN MAINTAINED. IT WAS HELD THAT WITHOUT MAINTENANCE OF CONSUMPTION REGISTER AND PRODUCTION REGISTER, THE MANUFACTURING O PERATIONS WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT MAINTAINED PRO PER RECORD FOR PAYMENT OF WAGES. IT WAS NOT A CASE OF A TRADER BUT O F A MANUFACTURER. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE BOOKS OF T HIS YEAR WERE MAINTAINED IN SIMILAR FASHION AS IN EARLIER YEARS. THE REFORE, IN VIEW OF THESE FINDINGS, IT WAS HELD THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE RIGHTLY REJECTED. 6.3 FURTHER, SHE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PU NJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRIJ MOHAN BANSAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (2009) 311 ITR 317. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN STOCK REGISTER OR INVENTORY OF CLOSING STO CK. THERE WAS NO 6 VOUCHERS TO SUPPORT THE PURCHASES. THE WOOD WAS PURCHASE D IN QUINTALS WHILE THE SALE WAS MADE BY VOLUME. FURTHER, THE FALL IN GROSS PROFIT RATIO WAS EXPLAINED BY STATING THAT SALES WERE M ADE TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. HOWEVER, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED AND GROSS PROFIT WAS ESTIMATED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) GRANTED SOME RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THE GROUNDS THAT I) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAINED PURCHASE RECORD; II) SALES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE; III) STOCK INVENTORY WAS NOT MAINTAINED; AND IV) THE ASSESSEE SHOWED LOW GROSS PROFIT RATIO AND LOW PRO FIT. THE HONBLE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY INTER ALIA MENTIONING THAT EVEN AFTER PRESENTATION OF COMP ARABLE DATA BEFORE THE ASSESSEE, HE DID NOT BRING ANY CONTRARY DATA ON REC ORD TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS PLEA. THEREFORE, THE BOOKS WERE REJEC TED AND PROFIT WAS ESTIMATED RIGHTLY IN ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF PRO PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6.4 RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MS. KRISHNA GUPTA VS. ACIT, ( 2009) 311 ITR 322. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS FOUND THAT I) SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE BUYERS WERE RECEIVED UN-SERVED A S THE PARTIES DID NOT EXIST ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS; II) THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE LEDGER ACCOUNTS, BANK STATEMENT ETC. OF THE PARTIES FROM WHICH HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH ADVANCE WAS TAKEN ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AND SALES HAD BEEN EFFECTED ON CREDIT ALSO; & III) VERIFICATION WAS DONE BY SALES TAX AUTHORITIES FO R FINANCIAL YEAR 1988-89 AND INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSI NG 7 OFFICER THAT THE REGISTERED DEALERS TO WHOM SALES WERE MADE, WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE AND THEIR ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MAD E EXPARTE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED AND PROFIT WAS ESTIMATED. THE CIT(A) GAVE PART RELIE F BUT HIS ORDER WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY EITHER PARTY. THE TRIBUNAL AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE HONBLE COURT CAME TO THE CONC LUSION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH ARE NOT OPEN TO VERIFICATION , CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, THE BOOKS WERE RIGHTLY REJECTE D. 7. AS AGAINST THE AFORESAID, THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M OHD. UMER VS. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 525. IN THIS CASE, IT IS MENTIONED THA T THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WERE WITH REG ARD TO A PREVIOUS YEAR AND NOT AT ALL NOT FOUND BY THE INCOME TAX OFF ICER IN THIS YEAR. THE DISCREPANCIES FOR THIS YEAR WERE; (I) ABSENCE OF CASH MEMOS, LEADING TO NON-VERIFICATION OF SALES; AND (II) SOME TRANSACTIONS WERE NOTED IN LUMPSUM. NO REASON HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY ANY OF THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES FOR NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE METHOD. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH A FINDING, THE BOOK RESULTS CANNOT BE IGNORED. 7.1 FURTHER, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. POONAM RANI (2010) 326 ITR 2 23. IN THIS CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT M ERELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT STOCK REGISTER HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED AND THERE IS A FALL IN GROSS PROFIT RATIO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 8 7.2 WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KACHWALA GEMES VS. JT. CIT, (2007) 288 ITR 10, RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DR. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MA INTAINED STOCK REGISTER AND THE INVENTORY OF THE CLOSING STOCK. THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES WAS NOT FULLY PROVED. THE BOOKS WERE REJECTE D AND THE PROFITS WERE ESTIMATED. THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO ARBITRARINESS IN REJECTING THE BOOKS AND ESTIMATING THE PROFITS AS COGENT REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN RESPECT OF BOTH ACTI ONS. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE AN ELEMENT OF GUESSWORK IN ESTIMATING PROFITS, BUT WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT IT SHOULD BE AN HONEST GUESSWORK. 8. REVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ONLY DISCRE PANCY LEFT UNEXPLAINED IS NON-MAINTENANCE OF DAY-TO-DAY STOCK OF VARIOUS ITEMS. THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO IS ADMITTEDLY HIGHER THAN THE R ATIO IN IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FOUR YEARS. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KAC HWALA GEMES IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED DETAIL S OF CLOSING STOCK AND THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF NON-GENUINE PURCH ASES. IN THE CASE OF OMAX SHOE FACTORY APART FROM NON-MAINTENANCE OF CONSUMPTION REGISTER AND PRODUCTION REGISTER, WAGES WERE NOT SUSCEPT IBLE TO VERIFICATION. THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE D ISTINGUISHABLE. IN THE CASE OF BRIJ MOHAN BANSAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EVEN MAINTAINED THE INVENTORY OF CLOSING STOCK APART FROM NON-MAINTEN ANCE OF STOCK REGISTER. FURTHER, THERE WERE NO BILLS TO SUPPORT PU RCHASES. THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THE CASE OF MRS. KRISHNA GUPTA, SALES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE, CASH ADVANCES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE AND ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF BUYERS OF THE ASSE SSEE WERE MADE EXPARTE BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. THUS, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE. COMING TO THE CASES RELIE D UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT A SPECIF IC FINDING HAS TO BE RECORDED REGARDING NON-ACCEPTABILITY OF THE METH OD OF ACCOUNTING AND IRREGULARITY IN THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE A SSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, THERE HAS BEEN NO ADVERSE FINDING REGARDING MAIN TENANCE OF 9 BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE IRREGULARITIES MENTIONED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER STAND EXPLAINED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THUS, THE ONLY DEFICIENCY CAN BE SAID TO BE IN RESPECT OF NON-MAINTE NANCE OF DAY-TO- DAY STOCK RECORD. THIS CASE OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL IS T HAT MAINTENANCE OF SUCH REGISTER IS NOT FEASIBLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . THIS OMISSION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T AS HELD BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. POONAM RANI. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO IN THIS YEAR IS BETTER THAN GROSS PROFIT RATIOS OF IMMEDIATELY FOUR PRECEDING YEARS. ACCORDIN GLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO VARY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNE D CIT(A). 9. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.06. 2011. SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( K.G. BA NSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 24.06.2011. NS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).