What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's contention that the books of account were already produced before the AO. The assessee was also willing to produce them before the CIT(A).

The assessee's books of account were rejected by the Assessing Officer (AO) who proceeded to make a best judgment assessment. The assessee contended that the AO wrongly recorded that no books were produced, as they were submitted on the first date of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO wrongly rejected the books of account and made a best judgment assessment without considering their production. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's decision without addressing the assessee's plea of prior production.

M/S Kirpa Ram Mast Ram & Co… vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2018

2 ITA Nos.1150-Chd-2016, 314 & 1314-Chd-2017- M/s Kirpa Ram Mast Ram & Company, Palampur, Kangra

Since common issue is involved in all the appeals, hence, they have been

heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The main

contention raised by the assessee in these appeals is regarding the action of

the Assessing officer in rejecting the books of account of the assessee and

thereby framing assessment u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the

Act'), as ‘best judgment assessment’.

The Ld. counsel has vehemently contended that though the books of

account were duly produced before the Assessing officer, however, the

Assessing officer wrongly recorded that no books of account have been

produced before him. A specific plea was also raised by the Ld. Counsel for

the assessee before the CIT(A) that the Assessing officer has wrongly recorded

in the assessment order that no books of account were produced, whereas, the

books of account were produced before the Assessing officer on the very first

date of hearing and had been lying for sufficient time with the Assessing

officer. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the above ground while

confirming the order of the Assessing officer rejecting the books of account

for non-production. The Ld. Counsel before us has submitted that even as on

today, the assessee is ready to produce the books of account before the

Assessing officer for his perusal and appreciation of the evidences.

We have gone through the order of the CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A)

has upheld the rejection of the books of account observing that the Assessing

officer has noted that despite sufficient opportunities, no books of account

were produced. However, he totally ignored the contention of the assessee that

the books of account of the assessee were already produced before the

Assessing officer and that the assessee was ready and willing to produce the

books of account before the CIT(A) also.

4 ITA Nos.1150-Chd-2016, 314 & 1314-Chd-2017- M/s Kirpa Ram Mast Ram & Company, Palampur, Kangra

Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR

M/S KIRPA RAM MAST RAM & CO.,KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAMPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments