CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog

256 ITR 243High Court2002#1266 most cited

What is CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog authority for?

The mere rejection of an assessee's books of account under Section 145(3) does not automatically warrant an addition to the returned income. The Assessing Officer must consider the books alongside historical data and other collected material after confronting the taxpayer.

89

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog · 256 ITR 243 · Section 145(3) · rejection of books of account · addition to income · estimation of income · onus of proof · trade creditors

Sections most often in play

Section 145(3)Section 144Section 143(3)Section 68Section 250Section 144BSection 153ASection 153D

Issues it is cited on

section 69dsection 155bbesection 2(9)section 66trade creditorsrejection of books of accountsection 158bbsection 69bsection 145(3)onus of proofsection 145section 153a(1)(b)

Judgments citing CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog

M/S Pradeep Kumar Contractor, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 374/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 374/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Pradeep Kumar Contractor The Acit Vs. Morolia Mension, Station Road Circle- Jhunjhunu Jhunjhunu Jhunjhunu Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aagfp 9445 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri K.C. Gupta, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 09 /01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 07-02-2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 145(3) & Thereby Rejecting Books Of Accounts. Appellant Prays

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT-DR
Section 145(3)

…these four contract works were awarded at below BSR Rate ranging from below 10.11% to 3.53%. In support of his contentions, the ld.AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s. Gotan Lime Khanij Udyhog, 256 ITR 243 (Raj) and submitted that Hon'ble High Court held that ‘’the rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) does not always lead to an addition in every such circumstances, even if there is fall in the g.p. ratio as such’’. The ld.AR further submitted that each Assessment Year is different and due to market forces trading results of the assessee are bo…

ACIT Circle-3, Mathura vs. Shobha Ram Sharma Contractor, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

ITA 306/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 44

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE:SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No. 306/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) Sh. Shobha Ram Sharma, Contractor, Vs.. ACIT,Circle-3, AA-2, Chandanvan, Mathura. Mathura. PAN:AABPS2246F (Appellant) Respondent) I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) ACIT-3, Vs.. Sh. Shobha Ram Sharma, Contractor, Rahika Bihar, Delhi Bye Pass AA-2, Chandanvan, Mathura. Mathura. PAN:AABPS2246F (Appellant) Respondent) Appellant by Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv.. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Date of Heari…

ACIT Circle-3, Mathura vs. Shobha Ram Sharma Contractor, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

ITA 296/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 44

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE:SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No. 306/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) Sh. Shobha Ram Sharma, Contractor, Vs.. ACIT,Circle-3, AA-2, Chandanvan, Mathura. Mathura. PAN:AABPS2246F (Appellant) Respondent) I.T.A No. 296/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) ACIT-3, Vs.. Sh. Shobha Ram Sharma, Contractor, Rahika Bihar, Delhi Bye Pass AA-2, Chandanvan, Mathura. Mathura. PAN:AABPS2246F (Appellant) Respondent) Appellant by Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv.. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Date of Heari…

M/S Ginni Filaments Ltd., Mathura vs. A.C.I.T., Range-3, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/AGR/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 234BSection 44A

…ot ispo facto gives rise to the jurisdiction to the 'AO' to make addition in the Gross Profit as fairly shown by the 'appellant' in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog reported in (2002) 256 ITR 243(Raj.). 3. BECAUSE, the authorities below erred on facts in making and sustaining addition of Rs. 12,26,645/- on account of notional gain on foreign currency as income without considering the facts that the same is unrealizable and notional. 4. BECAUSE, the authorities below had fallen in error in disallowing prior period expenses amounting to Rs.…

Shri Giriraj Prasad Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 782/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hearing Of The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 131Section 68

…see has inflated the expenses, then merely because the payment was made in cash cannot be a reason for such adhoc disallowance. He has relied upon the following decisions :- CIT vs. Inani Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 316 ITR 125 (Raj.) CIT vs. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) 10. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee has not produced the supporting bills and vouchers to substantiate the claim. Therefore, the assessee has failed to establish that the expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities be…

Shri Giriraj Prasad Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 781/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: The Hearing Of The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 131Section 68

…see has inflated the expenses, then merely because the payment was made in cash cannot be a reason for such adhoc disallowance. He has relied upon the following decisions :- CIT vs. Inani Marbles Pvt. Ltd. 316 ITR 125 (Raj.) CIT vs. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) 10. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee has not produced the supporting bills and vouchers to substantiate the claim. Therefore, the assessee has failed to establish that the expenditure has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities be…

M/S Hare Rama Hare Krishna Corals Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.N. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 145(3)

…ord, then the decline in GP rate losses its significance. He has relied upon the following decisions :- PCIT vs. Bhawani Silicate Industries, 236 Taxman 596 (Raj. HC) Malani Ramjivan Jagannath vs. ACIT 316 ITR 120 (Raj. HC) CIT vs. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) Pr. CIT vs. Hues India Ltd. 2015-TIOL-2275/2016 ITL 455 (Raj.) dt. 30.07.2015. CIT vs. Jacksons House 198 Taxman 385 (Delhi) and submitted that merely because qualitative record was not maintained, the books of account could not be rejected. A minor deficiency of quality-wise record in books of account would not necessarily lead to add…

ITO, Bundi vs. Rameshwar Meena, Bundi

In the result, the assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 420/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Apr 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K. C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 420/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke The ITO, Sh. Rameshwar Meena, Bundi. Vs. M/s Rajshree Goods Transports, Near Dev Narayan Mandir, By-pass Road, Bundi. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABUPM 2238 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 35/JP/2017 (Arising out of ITA No. 420/JP/2017) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Ye…

M/S Subash Chander Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range II, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 739/ASR/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. Nos. 738 & 739/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Deb (D.R.)
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…uld submit that, even so, rejection of accounts would not per se entitle the Revenue to make an addition, much less at an arbitrary sum. That is, an addition is not a concomitant of rejection of accounts, as explained in CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog [2002] 256 ITR 243 (Raj). The assessee’s book results for the following two years, i.e., AYs. 2012-13 and 2013-14, have been accepted. Merely because there has been a survey at the assessee’s business premises (some time prior to the first year under reference), whereat an undeclared stock – which could in fact represent undisclosed earnings for more than one year,…

M/S. Sbash Chander Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Range -II, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 738/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. Nos. 738 & 739/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Deb (D.R.)
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…uld submit that, even so, rejection of accounts would not per se entitle the Revenue to make an addition, much less at an arbitrary sum. That is, an addition is not a concomitant of rejection of accounts, as explained in CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog [2002] 256 ITR 243 (Raj). The assessee’s book results for the following two years, i.e., AYs. 2012-13 and 2013-14, have been accepted. Merely because there has been a survey at the assessee’s business premises (some time prior to the first year under reference), whereat an undeclared stock – which could in fact represent undisclosed earnings for more than one year,…

M/S Pradeep Kumar Contractor, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 59/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Shanmuga Priya (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 59/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/s Pradeep Kumar Contractor, cuke The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Jodha Ka Bas, Yaya, Chirawa, of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu Circle, Jhunjhunu LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGFP9445C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vks…

Design Core, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 617/JPR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 234BSection 244A(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…counts are rejected the only course available is to make a fair estimation which may or may not require any addition to the declared results. Rejection of accounts doesn’t necessarily require any addition as held in the case of CIT v/s Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj). In the facts of the present case, even the accounts are rejected, no further addition is required as the declared NP rate is already better than the earlier years. 7.3 After considering similar facts only this Hon`ble ITAT in Anuj Kr. Varshney applied 15%. Thus, under the totality of facts and circumstances, there was no reason to doubt…

Shashi Kant Khetan, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Jagdish Chand Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 145(3)

…) No trading addition even books are rejected: - Even the books of accounts are rejected on the basis of defects pointed out by the ld. AO no addition deserves to be made. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: i) CIT Vs Gotan Lime Khanij Udhog (2002) 256 ITR 243 (Raj). ii) J.C.Sharma Vs ITO 33 Taxworld 80 ITAT Jaipur Bench In view of the above no further trading addition deserves to be made and the humble assessee prays your honor to delete the addition of Rs. 51,29,955/- sustained by ld CIT(A). ITA 986/JP/2017_ 10 Shashi Kant Khetan Vs ACIT In view of the above submission, the humble assessee prays y…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Premium Bars (P) Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 143/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Jagdish Chand Kulhari (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 145(3)Section 147

…not to be disturbed by Ld. CIT(A) and therefore the addition of Rs. 20,11,527/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted and the assessee prays accordingly. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog reported in 256 ITR 243 has held that in every case of rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3), there is no need to make additions if the GP / NP results are satisfactory. This case of appellant is fully supported by the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in as much as that NP rate so shown during the year under consideration is better than earlier ye…

Sneh Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 698/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT)
Section 133ASection 40

…dia Ltd., 2015 TIOL 2275 (Raj.) Malani Rajjivan Jagannath vs. ACIT, 316 ITR 120 (Raj.) Ashoke Refractgories P. Ltd. vs. CIT 279 ITR 457 (Cal.) CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani, 41 DTR 194 (Del.) CIT vs. Om Overseas 315 ITR 185 ( P&H) CIT vs. Gotan Lisme Khaniz Udyog, 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) 4.1. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the orders of the authorities below. 4.2. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. While confirming the trading addition, the ld. CIT (A) in para 3.3 of his order observed as under :- 7 Smt. Sneh Gupta, Jaipur. “ 3…

Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5087/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal Nos. 5087 To 5091/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 3492 N A N D I.T. Appeal Nos. 5062 To 5066/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 5726 F (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. A.; Department By : Ms. Paramita Tripathy, Cit [Dr]; Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2017 O R D E R Per I. C. Sudhir, J. M. :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathy, CIT [DR]
Section 153A

…8%, though the provisions under section 44AD are not applicable in the present case, but the guideline provided therein can be used. In support he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog (2002) 256 ITR 243 (Raj). The ld. AR also referred page No. 13 of the paper book Vol.–II, wherein comparative chart showing year-wise NP rate has been shown. He also referred page No. 16 of the paper book Vol.–II i.e. copy of assessment framed under section 143(3) of the assessment year 2014-15 in the case of assessee itself by applying NP rate. 2.6 The ld. CIT [D…

Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5062/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal Nos. 5087 To 5091/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 3492 N A N D I.T. Appeal Nos. 5062 To 5066/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 5726 F (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. A.; Department By : Ms. Paramita Tripathy, Cit [Dr]; Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2017 O R D E R Per I. C. Sudhir, J. M. :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathy, CIT [DR]
Section 153A

…8%, though the provisions under section 44AD are not applicable in the present case, but the guideline provided therein can be used. In support he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog (2002) 256 ITR 243 (Raj). The ld. AR also referred page No. 13 of the paper book Vol.–II, wherein comparative chart showing year-wise NP rate has been shown. He also referred page No. 16 of the paper book Vol.–II i.e. copy of assessment framed under section 143(3) of the assessment year 2014-15 in the case of assessee itself by applying NP rate. 2.6 The ld. CIT [D…

Harbans Lal Sethi, Jaipur vs. Addl. CIT, Kota

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 495/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT-. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…at all permitted in the eyes of the law. The AO however, did not confirm to its settled requirement. Kindly refer Jotram Shershing vs. CIT 2 ITR 119 (All). 3.2 Addition Need Not Be Made, Even if Sec.145 Invoked: In the case of CIT v/s Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog 256 ITR 243(Raj), it has been held that mere rejection of books of account need not necessarily lead to additions to the returned income. It was also held that the books of account , together with past history of the case as also material collected by the AO should be considered for estimation of income. When accounts rejected- No separate addition / disallo…

The ITO, Burhanpur vs. Shri Pravin Mehta, Burhanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly, allowed

ITA 446/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.446 /Ind/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 145

…es from whom material was purchased. The books of accounts are audited and quantity of goods purchased and sold are maintained as reflected in tax audit report. The learned counsel relying on the decisions in the case of CIT V. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog [2002] 256 ITR 243(Raj) / 120 Taxman 779 /169 CTR 318 (Raj), CIT v. Anil Kumar & Co. 67 taxmann.com 278 (Karn), Malani Ramjivan Jaganath v. ACIT 316 ITR 120 (Raj) and others submitted that once rejection of books of accounts, is not justified, no addition can be sustained. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available…

Adtiya Pareek, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms.Sadaf Raies, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT-. DR

…not deserves N.P based addition/disallowances in its hands inspite of the fact that the books of accounts have been rejected. In this regard useful reference can be drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Gotton Lime Khanij Udhyog 256 ITR 243 where the Court has held that mere rejection in the books of account would not mean that it must necessarily lead to additions to the return income.’’ Taking into consideration of the arguments of the both the parties and decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Satya Prakash Choudhary (supra), it is observed that the facts and circumsta…