2009 (8) TMI 39

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....questions of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is right in law in confirming the findings of the CIT(A) by holding that there is no case for rejection of books of accounts, ignoring the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish the requisite separate trading and profit & loss account of trading of various commodities and that of the bottling plant and as such, in terms of section 114 of Evidence Act, the AO was justified in taking an adverse view. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is legally justified in holding that CIT(A) is justified in coming to a particular conclusion, especially when ACIT's letter dated 28.02.2008 addressed to the CIT(A) has m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essed the returned income at Rs.66,70,872 by rejecting the books of account by applying Gross Profit rate as per last year which resulted into addition of Rs.1,00,47,230. Admittedly the method of accountancy was same as was for the earlier year. There is no denying the fact that the books of account were maintained with the same procedure. The assessee duly maintained all the bills, vouchers etc. The Assessing Officer did not point out any defect in the books of account and applied Gross Profit rate as was in the earlier year. Admittedly, every Assessment Year is a separate and independent year which should be considered to the facts of that year. Even otherwise the Assessing Officer has not given any basis while increasing the Gross Pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e extraordinary for 2002-03 as compared to other years. So, reasons to be ascertained for such variance but Assessing Officer fails to take into account this variance." If the facts mentioned in the afore-mentioned para and the conclusion drawn in Para 3.6 of the impugned order, are analyzed we have not found any infirmity in the impugned order specially when the Assessing Officer has not assigned any reason while coming to a particular conclusion specially when no defect was pointed out in the valuation of closing stock. The assessee has followed the Fifo method while valuing the stock at cost and copies of bills were submitted during assessment proceedings and the latest rates were available with the assessee in respect of its products....