Pcit 2, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle Jaipur v. Shri Gotam Agarwal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 118/2024 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, At NewCentral Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.)-302005Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.)-302005 2. Pcit 2, New Central Revenue Building Statue Circle Jaipur ----Appellants Versus Shri Gotam Agarwal, 228, City Centre S.c. Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s): Mr. Sandeep PathakFor Respondent(s): HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHITOrder 14/08/2025 1.Learned counsel for the Revenue has vehemently argued thisappeal alleging that the CIT Appeals as well as the concurringjudgments passed by the ITAT deserve to be ignored and hasattempted to raise questions of law as mentioned in the appealwhich are as under: “1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, Ld. ITAT is justified in ignoring the factthat books of accounts were rejected by considering themas non-reliable, fabricated, manipulated and made toserve the sole purpose of explaining undisclosed incomesince the entire cash sale to the tuneof Rs.2,58,56,715/-was credited in the books of accounts were held to beunexplained cash credit and addition under section 68 ofthe Act of 196 made by the AO? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, Ld. ITAT is justified in ignoring the factthat the Assesse suppressed interest income byformulating colorable device by claiming abnormal andinflated expenses thereby generated business loss which was set off from interest income and thereby deleting theaddition of Rs.25,00,578/- made by the AO?” 2.We have carefully gone through the order passed by the CIT, whereby it reached to findings of facts that the concernedassessee had made genuine purchase and sales and non-maintenance of stock register cannot be a reason for rejection ofthe books of accounts. The CIT also found that the books ofaccounts have been duly audited under Section 44A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’). 3.Taking note of the factual findings, the ITAT too reached tothe similar conclusion after examining the record and concurredwith the findings of fact arrived at by the CIT Appeal. 4.The present appeal filed under Section 263 of the Act of1961 does not raise any question of law much less of publicimportance. In view thereto, we do not find any reason toentertain this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J MAHIMA/RAHUL/12