LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-220

HARISH AHUJA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

Decided On August 24, 2015
HARISH AHUJA Appellant
V/S
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Sec. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 31.12.2014 (Annexure A -3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "B", Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 484/CHD/2013 for the assessment year 2009 -10, claiming the following substantial question of law: -

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts, necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee filed his return of income 30.9.2009 for the assessment year 2009 -10 declaring the income at Rs. 14,04,784/ -. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure A -1) passed under Sec. 145(3) of the Act framed the assessment at Rs. 55,14,510/ - by making an addition of Rs. 41,09,728/ -. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity "the CIT(A)"]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 1.3.2013 (Annexure A -2) while partly allowing the appeal of the assessee restricted the GP rate to 9% and upheld the rejection of books of account. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 31.12.2014 (Annexure A -3) upheld the ground of rejection of books of account and directing the Assessing Officer to apply GP rate of 8% instead of 9% as ordered by the CIT(A). Hence, the present appeal by the assessee.

(3.) Learned counsel for the assessee relying upon the judgments in Pandit Brothers v/s. Commissioner of Income -Tax, Delhi : 26 ITR 159 (Punjab), Ashoke Refractories Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax : 279 ITR 457 (CAL) and Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Smt. Poonam Rani, : 326 ITR 223 (Delhi) submitted that non -production of stock register by itself was not sufficient to invoke Sec. 145(3) of the Act. It was urged that the rejection of books of account by the Assessing Officer, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was uncalled for.