Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai v. M/S Rajasthan Patrika Pvt Ltd

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 230 / 2008 Commissioner Of Income Tax Jai ----Appellant Versus M/S Rajasthan Patrika Pvt Ltd ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. K. D. Mathur on behalf of Mr. R. B. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. K. Kasliwal _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYASJudgment 25/04/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal of the Department and partly allowed theappeal of the assessee, modifying the order of CIT (A). 2.This Court while admitting the appeal has framed thefollowing substantial question of law: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT and CIT (A) have not acted perverselyand illegally in deleting and reducing the additionsmade on account of suppression of sale of wastepaper and aluminum scrap which was clearly reflectedfrom the record and which is directly proportional tothe newspaper published and the fact of increase ofsale of newspaper was admitted as per record? 3.Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of CIT (A) and the order of the Tribunal and contended that the view taken by the Tribunal is required to be reversed and the AO isrequired to be affirmed. 4.Counsel for the respondent Mr. Kasliwal has taken us to the finding of CIT (A) which reads as under:- “The findings of the AO in this regard are based on thefacts as submitted during Asstt. Proceedings and she hasmade additions after giving opportunity of being heard toexplain that the reasons as to how the sale of scrap isless than that earlier here while turnover of newspaperincreased substantially. This fact is apparent from therecord for which rejection of books under the provisionsof Section 145 of the Income-Tax Act does not appear tobe necessary as Section 145 only provides the basisi onwhich computation of income is to be made for thepurpose of determining the amount of tax. The provisionby itself does not deal with addition or deletion to theincome. However, the explanation of the Ld. AR in view ofthe facts and circumstances of the case as discussedabove is acceptable to the extent of rest of the amountRs. 40,14,678/- (50,91,210-10,76,532) and accordinglythe same is deleted. (relief Rs. 10,14,678/-) on theground that the AO has not pointed out any specificdefect in the books of accounts.” 5.Further, he drew the attention of this Court towards thefollowing observations made by the Tribunal:- 9. After hearing the arguments of both the parties andperusal of the record, we find that the quantitative detailsplaced before us by the assessee in its paper book atpage 1 are undisputed. The details at A.P.B.1 are under : Waste paper (In M.T) Last yearCurrent YearQuantity L.Y.Current YearSales (Rs.)90.662 Opening 101.6031154.848 Sales889.08663,89.126Stock1306.599 1109.835140.810 Office 149.806ReceiptsUse101.603 Closing 172.546Stock1397.2611211.4381397.2611211.438 ALUMINUM SCRAP (IN NOS.) 1998-991999-001998-991999219090 Opening937294965 Sales9145114,51,190Stock94879 Receipts11191215017 Used in -Office3987 Closing 24448Stock 31396911589931396911589978,40,316 6.We have gone through both the orders. 7.We are in complete agreement with the view taken by both the authorities. Hence, the issue is answered in favour of assessee and against the Department. The appeal stands accordingly dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. /bm gandhi 71