Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Chandigarh v. M/S Diplast Plastics Limited, 52, Sector 28-A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 254 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 24.7.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh ..........Appellant Versus M/s Diplast Plastics Limited, 52, Sector 28-A,..........RespondentChandigarh. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1.The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B dated 29.12.2004 passed inITA No. 379/Chandi/2002 for the assessment year 1998-99, proposing toraise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order ofthe CIT (Appeals) dismissing the evidence found duringthe survey proceedings u/s 133A as “rough notes” andnot treating the differences as “serious defects” in the“regular audited books of accounts” produced at the timeof assessment proceedings.” A survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted at the I.T.A. No. 254 of 2009 (O&M) business premises of the assessee on 17.9.1999 and certain loose papersand documents were found. The Assessing Officer held that tradingresults declared by the assessee were not verifiable. The assessee couldnot co-relate the transactions in the books of accounts with the RG register.Since the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of theassessee, he made addition to the declared income. On appeal, the CIT(A) set aside the addition for detailed reasons. It was held that theassessee was able to reconcile the entire material recovered during thesurvey with the return already filed. This finding has been affirmed by theTribunal. It was observed as under:- “We also find that the defects pointed out by theAssessing Officer while framing the assessment were onaccount of omissions, wrong postings and totaling errorswhich stood duly reconciled and explained by theassessee. Since the Assessing Officer while rejectingthe books of account mainly relied on the loose slipsfound during the course of survey which were also dulyreconciled and explained by the assessee before theCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and consideringthe fact that the books of account maintained by theassessee were duly audited and Assessing Officer hadnot pointed out any specific defect whatsoever in suchbooks of account maintained by the assessee and lastlykeeping the past history of this case in mind wherein aGP rate of maximum 16.66% was fully accepted by theRevenue, we are of the considered view that theCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified indeleting such addition made by the Assessing Officer byrejecting books of account and estimating the GP rate at 22.01% as against 13.20% declared by the assesseewhich was without any basis and without pinpoint anydefects in the regular books of account maintained bythe assessee.” 3.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4.Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the CIT(A) aswell as the Tribunal have erred in appreciating the material recoveredduring the survey. The explanation of the assessee was not proper andthe finding of the Assessing Officer should have been maintained. It wassubmitted that the view taken by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal wasperverse. 5.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perusedthe order of the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. 6.We are unable to hold that the findings are perverse. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal has discussed the entire evidence and recordeda concurrent finding of fact. 7.In view of above, no substantial question of law is involved.The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 24, 2009pooja (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No