DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. J & G Electronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 897/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2844 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S NEGI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Assessment record
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

1 I.T.A. NO.642/DEL/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH 'D ' NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRL J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRL KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER LT.A. NO. 897/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), V S. M/S. J & G ELECTRONICS P VT. LTD NEW DELHI 7/21, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI GIR 1 PAN :J-42 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. S. NEGI, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJEEV MAGO, CA DATE OF HEARING : 05.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01.2016 ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JM: THE APPELLANT, DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), NEW DELHI (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE REVENUE') BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL S OUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.12.2009 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A ) VII, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 ON THE GROUND S INTER ALIA THAT: '01. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS & CONTRARY TO FACTS & LAW. 02. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS.12,18,000/- MADE BY THE A. O. IN TRADING ACCOUN T ADOPTING THE GP RATE OF22% AS AGAINST 5.5% AS DECLARED BY THE AS SESSEE. 2 I.T.A. NO.642/DEL/2013 2.1. THE LD. CIT (A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING VOUCHERS / EVIDENCE FOR VERIFICATION AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE CORRECTLY REJECTED BY THE AO. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS.1,59,528/- MADE BY THE AO BEING EXCESS CLAIM OF INTEREST. 3.1 THE LD. CIT (A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED STATEMENT INDICATING INTEREST OF RS.3,75,200/- ONLY DURING ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION OF RS.19,940/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES. 4.1 THE LD. CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR VERIFICATION. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN ARRIVING AT CONCL USION THAT AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER S ECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5.1. THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT TH AT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ' 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE: DURI NG THE PROCESSING OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE QUA THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1997- 98, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMING LOSS OF RS.8,94,7 44/-, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES WERE ISSUED U/S 1 43(2) AND 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO ' THE ACT'), ON 22.02.2000 THROUGH RPAD SEEKING DETAILED INFORMATIO N BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON 23. 03.2000, SHRI S. C. AGARWAL, FCA APPEARED BUT HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS ON 23.03.2000 AS WELL AS ON 28.03.2000. LD. A.R. HOWEV ER FILED TWO LETTERS DATED 23.03.2000 REGARDING RENTAL INCOME BEARING AD DRESS OF THE 3 I.T.A. NO.642/DEL/2013 COMPANIES AT GURGAON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEED ED TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOW D TO ESCAPE THE FURNISHIN G OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE MERE PRETEXT THAT HE (ASSESSEE) HAS NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND INVOKED PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 144) RES ORTED TO GUESS WORK IN CASE OF BIDI MANUFACTURING BUSINESS OF THE ASSES SEE. LD. A.R. PLEADED THAT NOTICE DATED 22.02.2000 WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BUT COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM WHO HAS A GAIN FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS AND VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATION. AF TER TEST CHECK, THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AS UNDER: NET LOSS AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT (-)RS.8, 11,954/- DISALLOWANCES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN DETAIL RS. 15,70,000/- DEPRECIATION FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION RS4,6 5,634/- RS.12.23.680/- LESS: DEPRECIATION AS PER I T RULES, 1962 RS .5,48,680/- TOTAL INCOME RS.6,75,000/- 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT( A) WHO HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER. FEELING AGG RIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY FILING T HE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. LD. D.R. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER VEHEMENT LY RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER ON THE O THER HAND LD. A.R. REPELLED THE ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY LD. D.R. BY CON TENDING INTER ALIA THAT THE COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY AUDITED; THAT ISSUING OF NOTICE ON WRONG ADDRESS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SERVICE OF THE ASSESSEE AND MOREOVER NOTICES IN THIS CASE HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON WRONG ADDRESS AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). 4 I.T.A. NO.642/DEL/2013 5. WE HAVE HEARD LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND ORDERS OF TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. GROUND NO.1 : GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL AND ACADEMIC IN NATURE, HENCE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 7. GROUNDS NO.2 AND 2.1: THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.12, 18,00 0/- IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT BY ADOPTING THE GP RATE OF 22% WITH ESTIMAT ED SALE OF RS.45,00,000/- AS AGAINST G.P. RATE OF 5.5% DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS THAT THERE IS WIDE GAP IN THE FALL OF SALES FROM RS.80,72,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 TO RSAO,8 8,OOO/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98; THAT THERE WAS UNRELIABLE SALES FIGURE AGAINST THE QUANTITY OF MONITORS AVAILABLE FOR SALE AND EXP LANATION REGARDING PER UNIT SALE PRICE WAS ALSO NOT FILED. 7.1 LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY MAKING OBSERVATION IN PARA 7.3 AND 7.4 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: '7.3 IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING A PARTICULAR METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. ITS ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. AUDITORS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY CER TIFYING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOWING THE METHO D OF ACCOUNTING AND THAT THE ANNUAL PROFITS CAN BE PROPE RLY DEDUCED FROM SUCH METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE AUDITORS OVER THE YEARS HAVE ALSO BEEN CERTIFYING T HAT THE ACCOUNTS ARE REGULARLY MAINTAINED AND ARE COMPLETE IN THE SENSE THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT OMISSIONS THEREIN CHAN GE IN LAW WHETHER ENACTED OR DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT. T HE 5 I.T.A. NO.642/DEL/2013 ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS TO LOOK INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SITUATION AND DECIDE THE MATTER IN SUCH A MANNER THAT NEITHER IS PUT TO UNREASONABLE LIABILITY NOR THE ASSESSEE IS SUBJECTE D TO UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP. NO DOUBT IT IS NOT ONLY THE RIGHT BUT ALSO THE DUTY OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER WHETH ER OR NOT THE BOOKS DISCLOSED THE TRUE STATE OF ACCOUNTS AND THE CORRECT INCOME CAN BE DEDUCED THERE FROM. BUT THESE RIGHTS AND DUT Y HAVE TO BE EXERCISED IN SUCH A MANNER AND HAVE TO BE BASED ON COGENT REASONS AND SUFFICIENT MATERIAL. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE ON THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES IS DEMONSTRATED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE ASSESSEE. REJECTIO N OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE DONE LIGHT HEARTEDLY AS HELD BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ST. TERESA'S OIL MILLS V. STATE OF KERALA [1970) 76 ITR 365 AND BY THE ASSAM HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF TOLARAM DAGA V. CIT [19661 59 ITR 632. ACCOUNTS REGULARLY MAINTAINED IN THE COURSE OF BUSI NESS HAVE TO BE TAKEN AS CORRECT UNLESS THERE ARE STRONG AND SUF FICIENT REASONS TO INDICATE THAT THEY ARE UNRELIABLE AND INCORRECT THE A. O. HAS TO PROVE SATISFACTORILY THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE UNRELIABLE OR INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE BEFORE HE CAN REJECT THE AC COUNTS AND THIS CAN BE DONE BY SHOWING THAT IMPORTANT TRANSACTIONS ARE OMITTED OR IF PROPER PARTICULARS AND VOUCHERS ARE NOT FORTH COMING OR THE ACCOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ENTRIES RELATING TO A PARTI CULAR CLASS OF BUSINESS. WHEN A RETURN IS FURNISHED AND ACCOUNTS A RE PUT IN SUPPORT OF THAT RETURN THE ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT. THEY SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPLICATED. THE PROCEDURE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF JUDICIAL NATURE AND IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT HE SHOULD PROCE ED ON JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES. IF EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS RETURN IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS REBUTTED BY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND NOT BY MERE HEARSAY. 7.4 THUS FOR ALL THESE REASONS AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED SUFFICIENT MATERIAL JUSTIFYING ITS CLAIM AND AS IT HAS REPELLED THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH COGENT MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE, LAM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.12, 18 ,000/- BY RECASTING THE TRADING ACCOUNT. THUS FOR ALL THESE R EASONS AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED SUFFICIENT MATERIAL JUSTI FYING ITS CLAIM 6 I.T.A. NO.642/DEL/2013 IT IS HELD THAT THE ENTIRE EXERCISE DONE BY THE A. O. IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12,18,000 /- IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ' 7.2 IN THE FACE OF UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SETTLED LA W CONCERNING THE ISSUE IN QUESTION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW TH AT THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE FINDINGS RETURNED B Y LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (I) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS ADMITTEDLY PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME ARE NOT CORRECT OR COMPLETE WI THOUT EXPLAINING THE ERROR OR DISCREPANCIES THEREIN; (II) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EVEN FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE FAULT IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS IN HIS REMAND REPORT; TH AT THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS NO EXPLANATION REGA RDING FALL IN SALES FROM RS.80,72,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 996-97 TO ONLY RS.40,88,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 ARE APPARENTLY BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AS THE SALES RECO RDED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE SALES TAX A UTHORITIES AND CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (III) THAT ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE FALL IN SALES DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT BECAUSE OF THE LIBERALIZATION IN THE TRADE POLICY AND RATIONALIZATION OF IMPORT DUTY FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND COULD NOT COMPETE WITH THE ESTABLISHED COMPANIES LI KE LG, SAMSUNG, ZENITH, HP, MICROTECH ETC.; 7 I.T.A. NO.642/DEL/2013 (IV) THAT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE JUDGEMENT CI TED AS DHAKERSHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. VS CIT (1964), 26 IT R 775 (S.C.) HELD THAT IN CASE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE REJECTED, THE PROFIT HAS TO BE ESTIMATED ON THE BAS IS OF PROPER MATERIAL AVAILABLE, BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, EXCEPT GUESS WORK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO MATERIAL TO DETERMINE THE GP RATE OF 22% AS AGAINST (-5.58%) CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE; (V) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING A QUASI JUDICI AL AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO BASE HIS DECISION ON THE BASIS OF COGEN T MATERIAL; (VI) THAT ASSESSEE ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THER E IS A CONSTANT FALL IN THE GP RATE' FROM 44.46% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 TO 20.21% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AND THAT THIS FAC T HAS ALSO NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; (VII) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED A NY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM FOR VERIFICAT ION NOR HE HAS DISPUTED AUDIT REPORT- ANNEXURE II, PAGE 24 TO BE R EAD WITH PAGES 69, 75, 76 OF THE PAPER BOOK; (VIII) THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY PRODUCED THE AUDIT REPORT AND STOCK RECORD FOR VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, LYING AT PAGES 75 AND 76 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE (ASSESSING OF FICER) IS NOT EMPOWERED TO RESORT TO THE GUESS WORK; (IX) THAT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AS TO NOT PRODUCING THE COMPLETE ACCOUNTS BOOKS, HAVE ALSO NO T FOUND FAVOUR WITH LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS STATED THAT THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE ACCOUNTING PERIOD ARE AVAILABLE; 8 I.T.A. NO.642/DEL/2013 (X) THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THAT THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE SAME HAS TO BE TAKEN AS CORRECT UNLESS CONTROVE RTED WITH COGENT MATERIAL AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT B ROUGHT ON RECORD ANY SUCH COGENT MATERIAL. 7.3 SO, WE HEREBY DETERMINE GROUNDS NO.2 & 2.1 AGAI NST THE REVENUE. 8. GROUNDS NO.3 & 3.1: THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 ,59,528/- BEING EXCESS AMOUNT CLAIMED ON INTEREST ON THE GROU ND THAT IN THE P & L ACCOUNT RS.5,34,728/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS INTEREST BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGAINST 3,75,200/- REFLECTED IN THE STATEMENT ISSUE D BY HARYANA FINANCE CORPORATION (HFC). LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.1,59,528/- ON THE GROUND THAT IRRECONCILIATION I N THE P & L ACCOUNT OF HFC AND ASSESSEE IS DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN METHOD OF ACCOUNTING USED BY ASSESSEE AND HFC BECAUSE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERC ANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT WHEREAS, HFC DEBIT ITS ACCOUNTS IN TWO HALF -YEARLY INTEREST FROM 1 ST JUNE TO 30TH NOVEMBER AND AGAIN FROM 01 ST DEC. TO 31 ST MAY AND ARRIVE AT THE DECISION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY'S ACCOUNTING YEAR IS FROM 1 ST APRIL TO 31 ST MARCH, IT HAD TO PRORATE THE INTEREST WHICH IS OVERLAPPED IN BOTH HALF YEARS. SO, FROM THE PERU SAL OF LEDGER ACCOUNT, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AND STATEMENT OF HFC WHICH ARE RECONCILABLE, IT HAS COME ON RECORD THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,59,528/-. SO, WE HEREBY D ETERMINE THE GROUNDS NO.3 AND 3.1 AGAINST THE REVENUE. 9 I.T.A. NO.642/DEL/2013 9. GROUNDS NO.4 &4.1: DISALLOWANCE OF RS.19,940/- I.E. 50% OF THE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUN D THAT NO VOUCHERS/ BOOKS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED FOR VERIFICATION. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ADMITTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TH AT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD CONCERNED HAVE BEEN PRODUCED WHILE L EDGER HAS BEEN PRODUCED ONLY UP TO 31.12.2006. SO, IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES, ASSESSING OFFICER IS ESTOPPED FROM RECORDING THAT NO BOOKS OR VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. EVEN OTHERWISE, PERUSAL OF SUBMISSIONS DA TED 25.02.2005 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED LEDGER ACCOUNT AS TO REPAIR & MAINTENANCE SUPPORTED WITH COPIES OF RELEVANT INVOI CES RELATING TO THE EXPENDITURE. SO, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.19,940/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURES A ND SURMISES. SO GROUNDS NO.4 AND 4.1 ARE DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENU E. 10. GROUNDS NO.5 & 5.1: PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 5 APPARENTLY SH OWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD BUT PRODUCED THE LEDGER ONLY FOR THE PERIOD 01 ST APRIL 1996 TO 31.12.1996, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE COURSE OF BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED TO HIM PARTICULARLY N OTICES ISSUED ON 22.02.2000 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROD UCE COMPLETE RECORD, VOUCHERS AND EXPLANATION AND THERE ARE UNSATISFACTO RY TRADING RESULTS WHEN COMPARED WITH THE PAST ASSESSMENT RECORDS. 10 I.T.A. NO.642/DEL/2013 10.1 HOWEVER, WHEN UNDISPUTEDLY, COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PHASE V, UDYOG VIHAR, GURGAON HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE NOTICE SERVER, AND SUBSEQUENT NOTICES U/S 142(1) AND 143(2) DATED 22.02.2000 REQUIRING THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AGAIN I SSUED AT THE WRONG ADDRESS I.E. PHASE IV,. UDYOG VIHAR, GURGAON, THE A SSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO ADOPT THE COURSE OF BEST JUDGEMENT ASS ESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF WRONG FACTS. EVEN OTHERWISE, MERE ISSUANCE OF NO TICE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON. SO FAR AS T HE QUESTION OF NON PRODUCING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN VOUCHERS ETC, AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS CONCERNED, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN PRODU CED, HE HAS PROCEEDED AND DECIDED THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF SE LF CONTRADICTORY FACTS. HENCE, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE OF BEST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT A RE WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . SO, FINDING NO ILLEGALITY OR PERVERSITY IN THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A), GROUNDS NO.5 AND DETERMINED AGAINST THE REVENUE. 11. AS A SEQUEL TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HEREBY DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 ST JAN., 2016 2015. SD./- SD./- ( J. S. REDDY) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 01.01.2016 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 11 I.T.A. NO.642/DEL/2013 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). S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 1/1 SR. PS /PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 1/1 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 5/1/16 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER