IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.12.2011 (i) ITA No. 682 of 2005 Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak …..Appellant vs. M/s Dabur Bricks Company …..Respondent (ii) ITA No. 683 of 2005 Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak …..Appellant vs. M/s Delhi Bhatta Company …..Respondent (iii) ITA No. 684 of 2005 Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak …..Appellant vs. M/s Dabur Tiles Company …..Respondent CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: - Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Chabra, Advocate for respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J This order shall dispose of the above mentioned Income Tax Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income ITA Nos. 682 to 684 of 2005 Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) arising out the order dated 10.6.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi in Income Tax Appeal No. 2680/DEL/2003, Income Tax Appeal No. 3728/DEL/2003 and ITA No. 2679/DEL/2003 respectively pertaining to assessment year 1999-2000. The revenue has claimed the following substantial questions of law: - i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Hon’ble ITAT is perverse as it is based upon incorrect assumption of fact.” ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that books of accounts of the assessee did not suffer from any infirmity is based on any cogent evidence. A survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted on the business premises of the assessee on 11.8.1998 when certain loose papers were found. On the basis of loose papers, the Assessing Officer estimated 70 lacs bricks were manufactured during the year. The return was processed and additions made on the basis of consumption of fire wood by applying net profit rate of 12%. The assessee produced the books of accounts but such books of accounts were rejected as unreliable. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) applied gross profit rate of 14.8%, the rate claimed by the assessee in their returns. After making adjustment, the 2 ITA Nos. 682 to 684 of 2005 assessment was confirmed accordingly. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short the ‘CIT(A)’) relied upon the orders passed in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Rohtak vs. M/s Dabur Bricks Company (Assessment Year 1995-96 subject matter of ITA No. 107 of 2005 decided on 8.12.2011 vide separate order) and accepted the assessee’s appeal. The said order passed by the Tribunal has been found to be suffering from perversity and has been set aside by a separate order passed in ITA No. 107 of 2005 dated 8.12.2011. Keeping in view the reasons recorded therein, the entire basis of the order passed by CIT(A) & Tribunal are also not sustainable. Consequently, the questions of law as framed are answered in favour of the revenue against the assessee. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh on merits according to law. Disposed of. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 8.12.2011 preeti 3