PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the asses-see under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"), against the order dated March 19, 2012, annexure A. 3 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. No. 264/CHD/2011, for the assessment year 2007-08, claiming the following substantial questions of law (annexure "A" at page 79 of the paper book):

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee submitted that the decline of growth profit rate by itself cannot be a ground for rejection of books of account Reliance was placed on the judgment in M. Durai Raj v. CIT, 1972 83 ITR 484 (Ker.) in support of the submission. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgments in International Forest Co. v. CIT, 1975 101 ITR 721 (J & K), CIT v. Bharat Rice Mills,2001 250 ITR 584 (P & H), CIT v. R.K. Rice Mills, 2009 319 ITR 173 (P & H), Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills v. CIT, 1969 73 ITR 192 (P & H) and CIT v. Bindals Apparels, 2011 332 ITR 410 (Delhi) to submit that the findings recorded by the Tribunal sustaining the additions made by the authorities below were uncalled for and, therefore, substantial questions of law as claimed arise in the appeal.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below did not call for any interference as they were based on appreciation of evidence on record.