I.T. Appeal No.696 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T. Appeal No.696 of 2009 Date of decision : 21-01-2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh ....Appellant VERSUS M/s Crown Milk Specialties Pvt. Ltd, C-169, I.A., Ph-VIII-B, Mohali. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The Revenue has approached this court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “the Act”) by challenging order dated 29.05.2009 in respect of assessment year 2004-05 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in ITA No.62/CHD/2006. The assessee – respondent is a company which is engaged in sale of milk and milk products. It has claimed that purchase price reflected in the books of accounts was based on percentage of FAT and SNF found in the milk at the time of purchase. There was no scientific record available authenticating the contents of FAT and SNF in the milk maintain by the assessee – respondent. The Assessing Officer after making out the FAT and SNF proceeded to compare the results of the assessee company with Amrit Dairy. Adopting the norms of Amrit Dairy, he I.T. Appeal No.696 of 2009 -2- made adhoc additions of Rs.15 lacs by reducing the loss. However, the CIT(A) deleted the additions. On further appeal of the Revenue, the Tribunal found that there was no finding showing defect / discrepancy in the books of accounts of the assessee – respondent and that the assessee had produced sufficient records which reflected the entry quantity wise as well. The Tribunal also observed that 2004-05 is the first year of business of the assessee and it was not justified to compare their case with that of Amrit Dairy and that too without bringing any material on record. Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the view of the CIT(A) and maintain the deletion made by him. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue at considerable length and find that in the absence of rejection of books of accounts, it would not be possible for the Assessing Officer to resort to some other formula by invoking the norms of Amrit Dairy and then make additions. No question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise for determination of this court. The appeal does not warrant admission and is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 21-01-2010 manju