Versus v. Dated :- November 15, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1665 OF 2012 Mr. Suresh Kumar with Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant. CORAM :-S.C.DHARMADHIKARI &A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED :-NOVEMBER 15, 2014 P.C. :- This Appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 20[th] April, 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No.2550/Mum/2011 for assessment year 2007-08. 2)The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thane as also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition. Inasmuch as the books of accounts and the balance sheet of the Assessee were produced and they were very much before the Assessing Officer. He has not recorded any satisfaction within the meaning of sub-section (3) of section 145 of the Income Tax Act and yet made the addition, meaning thereby the books of accounts have not been rejected on the satisfaction that they are not correct or complete, nor are they brushed aside because of the method of accounting under sub-section 1 of section 145 of the Act. The assessment order indicated, according to the Tribunal, that the Assessment Officer examined the books of accounts and the Assessee furnished all the details, as required by him. He has not found any variation save and except in the valuation stock. Therefore, the books of accounts could not have been rejected and then the income estimated. 3)We find that this conclusion reached by the Tribunal in para 8 to affirm and agreeing with the Commissioner’s findings as found at para 8.5 of the Commissioner’s order cannot be termed as perverse. They are not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of record either. We have carefully considered the order of the Assessing Officer and the part on which our attention was invited by Mr. Suresh Kumar. We find at running page 29 and the page 30 that though the Assessing Officer proceeds on the footing that there are serious defects in the books of accounts, but that is not the sole foundation. He also questions the audit report under section 44AB of the Act. In these circumstances that he called upon the Assessee to furnish details of certain loans and advances. They are also furnished and the Assessee says that they are regular books of accounts maintained by him, which may be accepted. Though the Assessing Officer takes recourse to those sub-sections of section 145 that is essentially because he finds that the explanation of the Assessee if accepted would underline the credibility of the audit report. These were not matters and which could have enabled him to record the satisfaction within the meaning of sub-section 3 of section 145 of the Act, as rightly held by the Commissioner and the Tribunal. 4)In the above circumstances, the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)