!(m COIJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BII.ASPI) •T; T'AX CASE No.58 of2010 ApT'TiT T A"sTT RESPONDENT ves-siis The Assistant Coi Inuome Tax, RaipUi Shri B-ooDchand Tharani. Al-f{ /.lr" B.B.: Hon' ciaii s >; T'g".---^sl.i"1'^. 0^^,.* T^^-.-.'SK-.^ C't^—^-.-.-..i0'"'!^..--^ ^-_.-_ "T Present: Shri 'Rajeev Shrivastava, Standmg Counsei torthe appei Shii S.Rajcshw'ara Rau., Advoeatc for ihs reBpQiideiii. iT^TPAT ? T^mi-!T3 C'Pr^'TT^ifi.T •^^f1.-A f'VC'rTTJ"i? T^T^r^4I;° rT1 A V Ar'<rT ";rt.i; t^i^i^r^^ L~ir..»^i ^^i'tiii ^,ou-/-^ \^r i rin i.i^i^<j'ryir^ i/T./'S./-^.^/i - T*» ipy Tn U ilf JK. ?''T^9<3<??:>n nn 01 flav rk'F'Mnv?kiTs^p.i* /?.01 1~< ^^ iv'JhJ'V^V I^A-ii, \^' ^. v^»^y ^/-*- ^. ^ ^^ ?• ^/A-LA.-L/"?^^, ^ ^^•-P- ^- ^. The insta.nt appeal is prefcrre'ti by the Revenue against. t.he order (Uited 17.09.2009 oa-ssed bv the Income Ta.x Anneliate Tribuaal. Bila-sour Beneh. Bilasnur ifbr shof't 'the Trihzinal') v~i I.T.ANo. 22>'BLPR./2009. The a.Doeal of the B_evenue was admitted on the foliowine substaiitial auestions oflaw: "Whethsr the ITAT was risht ia upholdmg Ihe order 01 CIT (Appeals) wherein it was held that thc AO reiected the books of Accounts of the asssssse mainlamsu aiid auditeu by the Chanered AccouruAnt without noiHt.me out any mistaite m ths booli.s? " The facts, in brief, are tb.at the Assessing Of&cer (.for short 'frce AO'), while prooessmg the reti.im under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.. 1961 i.for short 'the Act. 1961 'V issued notice t.o the assessee imder section 143C2') and 142(1) ofthe Act. 1961. The assessee aDDeared throuA Advoca.tes and Cha.rtered '-^ r~r~ ^ L/ ^' y- -^'^^•—.J^... /pf\ -^^^^^ ^ ~^ s \,^y '"•"sSu^ Accountant and oroduced the books of account. The AO. holdine fhat the a.ssessee maintained books of accounts/docunients. thouefat it wa-s claimed to be maintained on dav to dav basis but not fiillv verifiabie. Thus. the NP rates for assessee was worked out to 3% considering the averase NP disclosed at Bhataoara bv other assessees. The difference ofNP 2.21% worked out for Rs. 20.62.465/- was added back to t.he assessee s income.. vide a-ssessment order dated 31 . 10.2008. 4. Beina aeerieved. the assessee filed an aDoeai before the Commissioner oflneome Tax (Appeals) {for short 'the CIT(A}}. The CITCA'). bv order dated 10.03.2009. as under: "3.2..The AO did not ooint o-at anv soecific ^ ^- 4.^.- 1n aiisiaKe m mainteiaad. The GP 'wa-s shown at 3.89% ia the Drecediae vear on total tumover of Rs. 9.14 crores and Np at 0.55%, whereas this year cintotal tomover ofB-s. 9.33 crores, GP was shown at 4.59% and NP al 0.79%. Tnas, the tradiag resulte ha.ve shown increased Ireiid. The yisld uf aiflerent produuls remained at the same rates as in the Drecedme vear. The AO did not ooint out specilic mislake wareanlmg appliuation of fhe Drovisioas of section 145f3\ Therefore. "ihe addilion is nut reasonabie and Iienus deleted." 5. >. Thereaeainst. the Reveaue oreferred an aooeal before llie Tribunal. The Tribiinai, after having considered all thc aspects of Ihe matter. came tn the conclusion that the order nassed bv the CITfA^ wa.s iiist. and orooer as te AO did not soecifv anv mistake and had fiirther not ooiiited out anv defect.. Thus. the order passed by the CIT(A) was upheld aad the appeal filed by fhe Revenue was dismisaed. v ^ 9f ^! /^,' "T 1S^. 'fc 6. We have nenised all the documests nroduced before tfais Court. We found that it is piu-ely a question of facts and the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal ha.ve riAtlv recorded that the AO. withoirt pouiting out a.ny specific niistaka in the books of accounts have he!d that the boote of a.ccounts aad other documents were not fiillv verifiable. The fmdina of the AO was riefatlv held as 7. erroneous, There ig no perversity in appreciation offacts. The substantial auestion of law arises for consideration oiiiv if there is peni'ersity ia the finding of fa.ct.. fhe Supreme Court', ia ^/77/?"t7 y^^yyi^sy "7V?7"i.i!?-/??* 't? f^/^'s'yi'ys^iwi^ys^?' f^f^ ???.'rl'T?'M^ ?^?y T^^l^si v"^" "y held as under: "23. A findine of fact mav give rise to a substaiitial question of law, iiiter a.1ia, in the eveat the findings are based on no evidence and/yr while arrivmg al tns said Gndmg, relevaiit admissible evidence has not been taken iirto consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken info consideration or leeal nrinciDles .i.ASVS s.. evidence. or whea the evidence ha-s been misread. (See Madan Lal v. Gopi, Narendra Goval VidvQrfhi v. Ramt Vi.chwrth'L Commr. of Ctiswms v. Vyay Dasharalh Paiel, Meirow'k Ltd. v. CCE and WB. Electricity Regw.iitor" ^omjnission v. ^^L^^/ i-,£a.) . 8. This Couri, in Com'mssiorier of Income Tccc, Raipw' v.Shri hA^yt{?rsi^i^/^~vt/1 ?^/7'?*^£'?? f-^T'' ??/i/?/? f^.-rffyt/^-yf/ifs/^/^yt f^vcif^rvf^^. V- j.V^.^sFt^^ti'vs's^irtvf- i ^.i ^ii^fif \-i±-^ -i'i-L/U^, ±\&fjilii^.fii,i'^\ii^ft , \/W*iri. V'^Vi. u unoer: "30. In view of the foreeoine. we are of the uonsidsred upimon thal the imdings rsuorded bv the CIT (A) and affimied bv the ITAT are based on propsr appreu.iat.ion oi." lauls asid are not oerverse. beina correlated with each and every transactioti. Thus, the issue is purely auestioil of fa.cfs. No nuestion of law. inore so (2011)1 SCC673 ~ iTA No. 16 oi 2004 & connected matter. aecided on 17.10.2011 r^ L/ ^ 3i ^":-%^. •^ '^ substantial auesiin&s of law. as aforestated. arise in the facls ofthe uase. 31, As an uoshot bofli the aooeals beine berefi. of merit, are liaols io be aad are hsrebv Aimt ^•fl hil' 9. The instant anoeal involves onlv on tb.e auesfion offacts- as the facts ha.ve been determined bv the CIT (A^ a.ud affirmed bv the Tribimal. Thus. it is a auestion of facts alone and no aiiestion of law, much less substantial question of law, arise in this ca.se for consideration under section 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Rari'ne Shyam Sharma Jucige L/ ^ 9: ^ -i- 'w