The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. M/S Harish Chandra (India) Ltd., Rohtak

ITA No.98 of 2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Sr. No. 10 ITA No.98 of 2019 (O&M)Date of Decision : 03.03.2020 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak...... Appellant Versus M/s Harish Chandra (India) Ltd., Rohtak ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARTHON'BLE MR.JUSTICEAVNEESH JHINGAN /// Present ;Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocatefor the appellant. /// AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) inThis appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Tribunal whereby the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. © 2 The following questions of law have been proposed:- 1. Whether the Ld. ITAT was right in law as well as on facts iupholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition ofRs.15,53,42,066/- made by the AO on account of differencein the net profit ratio of 4.40% as compared to the precedingyear by invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961.upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition ofRs.15,53,42,066/- made by the AO on account of differencein the net profit ratio of 4.40% as compared to the precedingyear by invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Ld. ITAT was right in law as well as on facts iupholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition ofRs.15,53,42,066/- made by the AO without adjudicating theissue of net profit ratio and simply relying upon the remandupholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition ofRs.15,53,42,066/- made by the AO without adjudicating theissue of net profit ratio and simply relying upon the remand -)| report whereas in the remand report, the issue was notexamined at all. |examined at all. | 3. Whether the Ld. ITAT was right in law as well as on facts inupholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition ofRs.15,53,42,066/- made by the AO, without appreciating thedecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N)Namasivyam Chettiar vs. CIT (38 ITR 579 (SC) wherein itwas held that in absence of vouchers/quantitative tally ofstock, profit can be estimated by the ITO.|upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition ofRs.15,53,42,066/- made by the AO, without appreciating thedecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N)Namasivyam Chettiar vs. CIT (38 ITR 579 (SC) wherein itwas held that in absence of vouchers/quantitative tally ofstock, profit can be estimated by the ITO.| 3,Brief facts are that the Books of Accounts of the assessee were found to be doubtful on the ground that Net Profit rate had droppeddrastically in the preceding years. Subsequently, a remand was ordered andin the remand report the Books of Accounts produced were checked but nofinding of any discrepancy was ascertained. It was in these circumstancesthat the Commissioner allowed the appeal of the assessee and that findingwas upheld by the Tribunal. 4In this view of the matter, the questions proposed are purequestions of fact and not questions of law much less substantial questions oflaw. 5Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. onSince the main case has been decided, the pending C.M.Application, if any, also stands disposed of. |Application, if any, also stands disposed of. | (AJAY TEWARI )JUDGE March 03, 2020ashish Whether speaking/reasonedWhether Reportable | ( AVNEESH JHINGAN)JUDGEJUDGE Yes/NoYes/No