l^' m THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR ^:', niwiMRj? Be t(<, Tax Case Income Tax Appeal No. ?J> ? /2006 e^r..^ ^'•'/I/J^/1; Appellant <^AJ.?".,",.^t.'A''k^" DeputyCommissionerofIncometax -.--•••I/AM.TJ-^'"' € circle 2 (1) RaiPur- ^<ia.--"",c3c^-t l3)-l -s.'?* .-. u" ..- ^sft'-" ^...-"y /M/s.Bhimsaria Doors Pvt. Ltd. 580 Industrial Estate, Urla Raipur. Tax Case Income Tax appeal u/s 260 A of Income Taxjict 1961. \i" '^", 9tgtt<SfiiyBTOFJUC ATU!F^CHHAn^^^;aa^^ DI\flSIONBENCH CORAM : HON'Bl^ SHTO S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLESHRIV.K.SHRIV^TAVA.J. ABMiUant TaxCasetacQi!Be.Ts»iABBea!No.31of20Q8. Depirty Commissioner of bwonie Tax Ch'cla2(1)Raupur. VERSUS RESPONDENT Mte. Bhimsaia Doore Pvt. Lhl. 580 Indusbrid Estate, tlrte ftedpw. Present: Shri Amtt Chaudhari aml Ms. Y<KhBa M.. iMurned counsel for the appellart. QGSftLQBDeR [Passed on 27tn November, 2006) The following oral order of <he Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK.CJ. This case arises oirt of the order ot Uie Income Tax Appeltate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 23-06-2006 bi the appeal fited by the assessee and the cross-appeal fited by Ihe rwenue. In ttie appeal, the assessee has chaltenged the addition n»de by tte Assessing Otffeer to the book results, whereas in <he appeal <rf the revenue, tte revenue ctaltenged the reduction granted by CIT (A) m rwpect of applteation of net prrtit from 12%actopted by fte Assessing CNficer to 4% of Ihe receipte. By the impugned order, fte Tribunal has dismissed the appeal as well as the cross-appeal. (2) Having heard leamed counsel for ttie awellant, we do iwt find any quesfion of law, much tess sub^anfial cpje^km <rf <aw (hat arises for decision-making. What the teamed Standing Counsel tor the Income Tax Department would assait btfore us is ttie correcbiess of the finding -X of fact recorded by the Tribural. The Tribunal in para 7 of the ordw recorded its finding thus: "7. We have consktered die rival submissiCTK. The evidence and ckicuments ptaced in tfie paper boolc are examined. The various submissfons as made by assessee as well as revenue are considered. ttisseenthatthebooteofaccountafthe asssssee are audited and quantitaUve d^ails are available in the boote of accounts. The quantitathre delails have ateo been submitted in the tax audtt report as well as audited balance sheet <rf the assessee company. The books of accounts <rf the assessee were produced b^ore the A.O. and have also been examined in the cSourse of assessment proceedings. The overall quantitative details of the year are available on record. The monttiwise electricity bilte were produced before the A.O. The monthwise electricity bills were produced before the OA The unils consumed in the morth are mdicated in the electricity bilts produced by assessee befor®the A.O. The quanUtaUve detaits as regard to purchases and sales ara also reflected in the booksof accounte produced before the A.O. The A.O. has not tound any mistake or defect but has rqected the book results as according to him details vyere rmt fited by assessee. We are of the opinfon that if awessee hs® maintained books of accounts whfch ateo cortains quantitative details and same have been produced before the A.O. there is no case for revenue to reject the books of irccounts of assessee. A.O. cannot reject the book results for mere non flling of detaite, tf the d^ails were available in the boote produced before him. It is also seen on the record ttiat assessee has shown during flie year nst pnriit of 0.25% vrttich is bettsr as compared to eariier yaar accepted by revenue u/s 143 (3) proceedings. The '•\ gross prodt and various expenses as shown by assessee are also comparaMe to what revenue has accepted in Ure case of assessee in the bnntediaMy eariier year. We are also of ttie opinion that the reasoning <rf fte CFT W as to the stock hmiover rafio is no reason to rqect the books residts of assessee. We are of the opinion that the net fwoflt as shown by the assessee is fully verifiable with reference to te^ri and cogent evidence produced before the A.O. and tt does not call for anyaddffion to be made at the hands of assessee. The gross profit and net profit as shown is fair and reasonabte considering the evidence on record of assessee. Considering the fertalBy ttie facts and circumstances ofttie case nre are ofttie opinton that rejection of the books of accourts by ttie A.O. was unjusBfied We are trf the opinion ttat A.O. ought to have acc^ted the neA income flpom busine% as shown in ttie retum of Income. We therefore hold that the income as shown in tte retum at Rs. 13.922/- be accepted and enBre addition as made by the A.O. is detetsd. The appeal on the ground No.2,3 & 5 of assessee is alkwed and ttiat of revenue is dismissed." (3) The finding recorded by ttie Tribunal is based on perusat of the records of the case and ttie evidence laid before (he Assessinc Officer. The finding does nrt suffer from any petvereity, and K cannot be condemned for want of l^al evidence. The appeal te devokl of merit Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Judge $•.1^-1