Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. Shri Amol Agarwal

[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.59/2014 Commissioner of Income Tax, UdaipurVersusShri Amol Agarwal Date of Judgment :: 13.04.2016 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHURHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. K.K. Bissa, with Mr. Gajendra Singh Chouhan, for theappellant BY THE COURT : This appeal is preferred to question correctness ofthe judgment impugned dated 25.09.2013 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur inIncome Tax Appeal No.391/Jodh./2013 for the assessmentyear 2009-2010. In brief, facts of the case are that the assessingofficer under the order dated 23.12.2011 rejecting the booksof accounts of the assessee being not satisfied as per theprovisions of sub-section (3) of Section 145 of the Income TaxAct, 1961. The justification taken by the assessing officer wasaffirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Theorder passed by the assessing officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was subject-matter ofan appeal preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunaland that came to be accepted under the judgment impugned.Learned Tribunal while accepting the appeal arrived at theconclusion that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)while upholding the rejection of books of accounts underSection 145 (3) of the Act of 1961 is not justified as theassessment order itself mentions that the assessee producedbooks of accounts alongwith supporting vouchers. TheTribunal further noticed that the assessing officer had notpointed out any specific defects in the books of accounts orvouchers produced by the assessee on day to day basis inregular course of business. In appeal, the only argument advanced by learnedcounsel for the appellant is that mere production of books ofaccounts is not sufficient. It was required to satisfy theassessing officer about all the details extended in the case inhand. As per learned counsel, the assessee though tenderedthe books of accounts, but did not support the same withadequate material to get the assessing officer satisfied. We do not find any merit in the argumentadvanced. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal after examiningthe entire record arrived at a definite conclusion that thebooks of accounts produced by the assessee were adequately supported by the vouchers and the assessing officer did notpoint out any specific defect in the books of accounts and thevouchers submitted in support thereof. In view of it, we are of the considered opinion thatthis appeal does not involve any substantial question of lawrequired to be adjudicated by this court. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly. ,J. , J. Pramod