\^¥ 'ax Case (Income Tax Appeai) No. 38 of 2008 Income Tax Officer -1 (3) Raipur (CG) l^ M/s Gopa! Rice Mill, Lawan Road, Baloda Bazar (CG) *=?^s?; a. t^ Mr. S. Rajeshwara Rao, learned counsei for the appellant. Mr. Shashank Dubey, learned Sr. Advocate with Ms. Smiti Sharma, iearned counsel for the respondent. (Passed on 14th September, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J 01. This income tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short '1:he Acf') against the impugned order of the income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (for brevity "the Tribunal") has been admitted on following substantia! question iaw: 'Whether, on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribiinal was justified in law in deleting the addiffon confirmed by the C!T {AppeaSs) amounting to Rs.41,04,016/- wh'iie oveilooking the fact ff?af cfetailad working given in ffie assessment order was based on figuies emerging from assesee's own books of accounts and it was not arrived at on presumptions?" 02. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is the owner of Rice Mill and derives income from manufacturing rice and its byproducts. The return filed by the assessee for the relevant year was selected for scrutiny and accordingiy, notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act to the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) after completing assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act, made addition of Rs.43,01,514/- considering the amount of suppression of Rs.32,85,475/- on sale of rice and Rs.8,18.541/- on sale of broken rlce. 03. The Commissioner of 'ncome Tax (Appeals) {in short "CIT(A)"} -i partiy allowed the appeal by sustaining the addition made by the AO to the extent of Rs.41,04.016/-. However, the Tribuna! aliowed 2. ^ 0. the appeai of the assessee, set aside the addition sustained by the C!T(A), with a finding that the assessee is maintaining the reguiar books of accounts, which are duiy audited, and the day-to-day stock register; no defect was found by the AO in the books of accounts or stock register maintained by the assessee; the gross profit as well as overai! yield disclosed by the assessee is better than the gross profit and yield as compared to preceding two years; and that the AO has not found a single instance of suppression of sales by the assessee. 04. Shri S. Rajeshwar Rao, iearned counsel appearing for the ippeHanVrevenue submits that the AO made the above addition after working out the suppression made by the assessee. The reasoning assigned by the AO was that the assessee wouid not se!i the polished rice at iower rate than at which the raw rice was purchased by the assessee. However, the Tribunai without considering the above glaring inconsistency in the conduct of the assesses, has sumrnarily ailowed the appeai of the assessee by piacing reiiance on the books of accounts, which stood impiiediy rejected. 05. On the other hand, learned counsei for the respondent argues that the AO made the addition on conjectures and surmises without finding any fauit with the books of accounts and without rejecting tl'ie same, the profit has been assessed on the basis of yield assessment, whlch is contrary to fhe books of accounts kept durins the process of business ofthe Rice Mlll. 06. Reiiance has been placed on the orcfer dated l^ April, 2009 passed in Commiss'ioner of income Tax, Circle-1, Raipur Vs. M/s Gupta Enferprises, Vk'herein this Court reiying upon the judgment in the matters of Bandi Cooperative Labourand Construction Society l/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 300 !TR 107 (P&H), has heid that the dispute regarding method of estimation of sale value and estimation of income on the basis of sale vaiue can, by no streteh of imagination, be considered to be a substantia! question of !aw. have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 08. Keeping in view the reasons assigned by the Tribuna! in para 11 of its order, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of iaw, as proposed by the appeilant, is involved for adjudication of this appeal. The appeal being wlthout substance deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge R.N. Chandrakar Judge 111