M/S KIRPA RAM MAST RAM & CO.,KANGRA vs. ITO, PALAMPUR
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).
What were the facts?
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.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026