“rejection of books of account”

Ratan Kumar Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

reason that the appellant has not maintained a register for raw material. After rejecting the books of accounts by invoking the provision of section 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961, the learned AO applied an average GP rate on the basis of preceding year ... finally settled position of law that merely because there is some deficiency in books of accounts or merely because rejection of books of accounts does not lead to addition to return income. The submissions are drawing support from the following case laws :- “ Ref : [2002] 256 ITR 243(Rajasthan) in case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

while passing the impugned order. In the instant case, the Id. CIT(A) has therefore rightly held that after rejection of books of accounts, the past history of the assessee has to be seen for estimating the gross profit rate. At the same time, we find that the basis ... that the assessee inflated the purchases upto 25% and therefore, it was not a case of non verification of the purchase and rejection of books of accounts but the fact 24 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya was established in the investigation that the assessee inflated the purchase price and accordingly

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.453/Jp/2024 On The Following Grounds; “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,33,606/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Shown Bogus Purchase Of Rs 1,73,34,424/- During The Year From A Bogus Concern. 3

while passing the impugned order. In the instant case, the Id. CIT(A) has therefore rightly held that after rejection of books of accounts, the past history of the assessee has to be seen for estimating the gross profit rate. At the same time, we find that the basis ... that the assessee inflated the purchases upto 25% and therefore, it was not a case of non verification of the purchase and rejection of books of accounts but the fact 14 ITA No. 453/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya was established in the investigation that the assessee inflated the purchase

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Jaipur vs. Gordhandas Nandkishore Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed with no orders as to

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

customers to whom goods were sold below the threshold of Rs 2,00,000. [Page-5] 4. Ld. AO did not reject the books of accounts [Page-5] 5. Ld. AO has erred in mentioning that stock register is not forming part of the list of documents maintained and examined ... under assessment has not been artificially inflated to accommodate any unaccounted cash held by the appellant. The Assessing Officer has also not rejected the books of accounts but merely rejected some sales and even after rejecting the said sales, he has merely reduced the net profit on these sales from

Gemco International, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Nazar Impex Pvt Ltd Rs. 9,15,702/- (b) The ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law and facts in confirming the rejection of books of accounts of the assessee. 6. The ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not quashing the assessment order as the same

Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt Ltd, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce, Kota, Rajasthan

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order CIT(A) erred in rejecting the books of account of the assessee by applying the provision of Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without asking the assessee to produce ... facts of the case. It is argued that the Ld. AD has made the huge addition under section 69A without rejecting the books of account by invoking the provisions of s. 145(3) The Income Tax Law does not empower the AD to make exorbitant addition without rejecting the books

Amar Pratap Steels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

/National Faceless Appeal Center ("NFAC") has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee company by invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The action of the NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against ... facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the rejection of books of accounts of the assessee company as done by the Id. AO and confirmed by the NFAC. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred