Abmiuant v. Respondent Mte. Bhimsaia Doore Pvt. Lhl. 580 Indusbrid Estate, Tlrte Ftedpw

m THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR ^:',niwiMRj? Bet(<,Tax Case Income Tax Appeal No. ?J>?/2006e^r..^^'•'/I/J^/1;Appellant<^AJ.?".,",.^t.'A''k^"DeputyCommissionerofIncometax-.--•••I/AM.TJ-^'"' € circle 2 (1) RaiPur--s.'?*^<ia.--"",c3c^-t l3)-l.-. u"..-y^sft'-"^...-"/M/s.Bhimsaria Doors Pvt. Ltd.580 Industrial Estate, Urla Raipur.Tax Case Income Tax appeal u/s 260 A of Income Taxjict1961. 9tgtt<SfiiyBTOFJUC ATU!F^CHHAn^^^;aa^^ DI\flSIONBENCH CORAM : HON'Bl^ SHTO S.R. NAYAK, CJ&HON'BLESHRIV.K.SHRIV^TAVA.J.TaxCasetacQi!Be.Ts»iABBea!No.31of20Q8.Depirty Commissioner of bwonie TaxCh'cla2(1)Raupur. ABMiUant VERSUSRESPONDENTMte. Bhimsaia Doore Pvt. Lhl.580 Indusbrid Estate, tlrte ftedpw. Present:Shri Amtt Chaudhari aml Ms. Y<KhBa M.. iMurned counselfor the appellart.QGSftLQBDeR[Passed on 27tn November, 2006)The following oral order of <he Court was passed byS.R.NAYAK.CJ. This case arises oirt of the order ot Uie Income Tax AppeltateTribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 23-06-2006 bi the appeal fited bythe assessee and the cross-appeal fited by Ihe rwenue. In ttie appeal,the assessee has chaltenged the addition n»de by tte AssessingOtffeer to the book results, whereas in <he appeal <rf the revenue, tterevenue ctaltenged the reduction granted by CIT (A) m rwpect ofapplteation of net prrtit from 12%actopted by fte Assessing CNficer to4% of Ihe receipte.By the impugned order, fte Tribunal has dismissedthe appeal as well as the cross-appeal.(2)Having heard leamed counsel for ttie awellant, we do iwt findany quesfion of law, much tess sub^anfial cpje^km <rf <aw (hat arises fordecision-making.What the teamed Standing Counsel tor the IncomeTax Department would assait btfore us is ttie correcbiess of the finding -X of fact recorded by the Tribural.recorded its finding thus: The Tribunal in 7 of the ordw para "7. We have consktered die rival submissiCTK.The evidence and ckicuments ptaced in tfie paperboolc are examined.The various submissfons asmadebyassesseeaswellasrevenueareconsidered. ttisseenthatthebooteofaccountaftheasssssee are audited and quantitaUve d^ails areavailable in the boote of accounts.The quantitathredelails have ateo been submitted in the tax audttreport as well as audited balance sheet <rf theassessee company.The books of accounts <rf theassessee were produced b^ore the A.O. and havealso been examined in the cSourse of assessmentproceedings.The overall quantitative details of theyear areavailableonrecord.The monttiwiseelectricity bilte were produced before the A.O.Themonthwise electricity bills were produced before theOA The unils consumed in the morth are mdicatedin the electricity bilts produced by assessee befor®theA.O. The quanUtaUve detaits as regard to purchasesand sales ara also reflected in the booksof accounteproduced before the A.O.The A.O. has not toundany mistake or defect but has rqected the bookresults as according to him details vyere rmt fited byassessee. We are of the opinfon that if awessee hs®maintained books of accounts whfch ateo cortainsquantitative details and same have been producedbefore the A.O. there is no case for revenue to rejectthe books of irccounts of assessee.A.O. cannotreject the book results for mere non flling of detaite, tfthe d^ails were available in the boote producedbefore him.It is also seen on the record ttiatassessee has shown during flie year nst pnriit of0.25% vrttich is bettsr as compared to eariier yaaraccepted by revenue u/s 143 (3) proceedings.The gross prodt and various expenses as shown byassessee are also comparaMe to what revenue hasaccepted in Ure case of assessee in the bnntediaMyeariier year.We are also of ttie opinion that thereasoning <rf fte CFT W as to the stock hmiover rafiois no reason to rqect the books residts of assessee.We are of the opinion that the net fwoflt as shown bythe assessee is fully verifiable with reference to te^riand cogent evidence produced before the A.O. and ttdoes not call for anyaddffion to be made at the handsof assessee. The gross profit and net profit as shownis fair and reasonabte considering the evidence onrecord of assessee. Considering the fertalBy ttie factsand circumstances ofttie case nre are ofttie opintonthat rejection of the books of accourts by ttie A.O.was unjusBfied We are trf the opinion ttat A.O. oughtto have acc^ted the neA income flpom busine% asshown in ttie retum of Income. We therefore hold thatthe income as shown in tte retum at Rs. 13.922/- beaccepted and enBre addition as made by the A.O. isdetetsd.The appeal on the ground No.2,3 & 5 ofassesseeisalkwedandttiatofrevenueisdismissed."(3)The finding recorded by ttie Tribunal is based on perusat of therecords of the case and ttie evidence laid before (he Assessinc Officer.The finding does nrt suffer from any petvereity, and K cannot becondemned for want of l^al evidence.The appeal te devokl of merit appeal te devokl of merit te devokl of merit devokl of merit of merit meritSd/-and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.V.K.ShrivastavaSd/-JudgeChiefJustice The appeal te devokl of merit appeal te devokl of merit te devokl of merit devokl of merit of merit meritSd/-V.K.ShrivastavaJudge