1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT CIT, Ajmer Vs. M/s Selection Synthetics Ltd., Bhilwara. D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.41/2006 against the judgment dt.9.5.2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in ITA No.365/JU/2004 for Asstt. Year 1997-98 Date of judgment : 19th April, 2006 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. VYAS Mr. K.K. Bissa for the appellant. _____ BY THE COURT:- (PER HON'BLE RAJESH BALIA, J.) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal. The question suggested by the appellant – Revenue relates to setting aside the order passed under Section 145 of the Act by the Assessing Officer rejecting the books of account. 2 The CIT (Appeals) after taking into account the volume of business, the maintenance of books of account, the variation in level of price and level of production from month to month and comparing with the corresponding datas of the previous years came to the conclusion that it was not a case where company's books of accounts duly registered with the Registrar of Companies could be rejected and, therefore, order under Section 145 of the Act was set aside. Whether the books of account are such according to which profit and gain of business could be correctly determined or the same is ordinarily a question of fact. The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal having found that there did not exist sufficient ground for rejecting the books of accounts does not give rise to any question of law. Similarly, the dis-allowance on account of vehicle expenses and depreciation on the vehicle by the Assessing Officer was not countenanced by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal inter alia on the ground that there is no material to suggest that the vehicle expenses and depreciation thereon had any element of personal user, as the 3 matter relates to the books of account of a private limited company where accounts are maintained in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, is a finding of fact. In our opinion, basically both the questions sought to be raised by the Revenue cannot be said to be substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. [ R.P. VYAS ], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/