M/S. Rajasthan Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur

D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 251/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 251/2010 M/S. RAJASTHAN CABLES & CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD.VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,JAIPUR. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 28.03.2012 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA'HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. Ashish Sharma, for the appellant.Ms. Tanvi Sahai on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur, for therespondent. The only question raised in the instant appeal isthat the books of accounts have been wrongly rejected by theAssessing Officer, CIT(A) and ITAT. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant that books of accounts could not havebeen rejected in view of the Audit Report and Report of C.A.Error has been committed by the concerned authorities andthe ITAT, while rejecting the books of accounts. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant atlength. The reasons assigned by the CIT(A) for rejection ofbooks of accounts are that the appellant did not maintain theconsumption register for stores, spares and consumables aswell as for packing material. In absence of standardproduction and standard consumption of the raw material, thesame is also not verifiable because the raw material ispurchased in terms of tones, while the finished production has been shown in terms of meters. Hence, the CIT(A) upheld theorder passed by the Assessing Officer, rejecting the books ofaccounts. The ITAT has also observed that it was notpossible to verify the raw material consumed and the itemspurchased; it was also not possible to work out the exactconsumption of the raw material vis a vis production. It wasalso not possible to verify the expenditure incurred on takingthe material. Hence, order passed by the Assessing Officerand the findings recorded by the CIT(A) have been upheld bythe ITAT. We find that merely on the ground of Audit Reportor Certificate of C.A. were in favour of appellant, no dent wascaused in the findings, which have been recorded by AssessingOfficer, CIT(A) as well as ITAT, as there were seriousdiscrepancies in the books of accounts, which were maintainedby the assessee-appellant. Consequently, we find thatfindings, recorded by the Assessing Officer and confirmed byCIT(A) and ITAT cannot be said to be perverse. Resultantly, no substantial question of law isinvolved in the appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merits, isliable to be dismissed and the same is, hereby, dismissed inlimine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ. Manoj “All corrections made in the judgment/order have beenincorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”