D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. Shri Kanti Lal Jain

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR JUDGMENT D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.123/2014Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur Vs. Shri Kanti Lal Jain Date of Order :18.08.2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Mr. K.K. Bissa for the appellant. -BY THE COURT: The instant appeal has been preferred against theorder of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jodhpur Bench,Jodhpur dt.22.10.2013. Brief facts of the case which are relevant to decide thepresent appeal are that the assessee is engaged in thebusiness of wholesale trading of Silver Bullion in the nameand style of M/s Hardik Jewellers in Surat. For theassessment year 2009-10 in question, the assesseedisclosed his total sale of Rs.10,81,00,647/- declaringgross profit of Rs.7,78,324/- giving gross profit rate of0.72% and the net profit shown by the assessee isRs.1,88,588/- with profit rate of 0.17%. It is not in dispute that assessee has maintained and produced regular books of accounts along with supportingvouchers and other relevant material, but the AssessingOfficer rejected the same and asked the assessee toproduce those persons/concerns for examination. TheAssessing Officer also resorted to the provisions of Section131(1)(d) of Income Tax Act for verification of genuinity ofcash sales. After perusing the evidence adduced by the assessee,the Assessing Officer did not deem the books of accounts fitand satisfied with the material available on record, rejectedthe same and has finally made a trading addition ofRs.72,47,266 by adopting gross profit rate of 8%.Obviously the Assessing Officer has rejected the books ofaccounts invoking Section 145(3) of the Act and the learnedTribunal took note that gross profit rate of the assessee forthe preceding 2 years i.e. 2007-08 and 2008-09 is 48% and69% respectively and after rejection of the books ofaccount, the Assessing Authority invoking Sec.145(3) of theAct and taking note of the fact that gross profit rate is0.72% which was better than from the past two years, didnot consider it appropriate to interfere. In totality, we are satisfied with the trading additionbased on best judgment assessment, theory adopted by theTribunal after rejection of the books of accounts is justified. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant before us is nothing but re-appreciation of the factualmatrix which has been considered by the Tribunal in detailwhile upholding GP rate 0.72% disclosed by the assessee isa finding of fact and there is no substantial question of lawarises for our consideration. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit and ishereby dismissed. [ VIJAY BISHNOI ], J. [ AJAY RASTOGI ], J. babulal/33