2013 (3) TMI 672

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... PARDUMAN KUMAR, ETC. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HARYANA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AND NEW DELHI-III (AND OTHER APPEALS) [ 1978 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] Decision in favor of Assessee.
AKIL KURESHI AND MS. SONIA GOKANI, JJ. For the Appellant : Pranav G. Desai ORDER Ms. Sonia Gokani, J - Aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench ["Tribunal" for short] dated 21st September 2012, Revenue has challenged its order by proposing the following substantial question of law for our consideration :- (A) "Whether in law and in facts, the ITAT is right in deleting the addition to the tune of ₹ 57,04,983/- out of total addition of ₹ 62,20,098/= made by the A.O under the provisions of Secti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ening stock and purchases are part of trading account, as shown in the audited accounts and that therefore, they cannot be rejected without rejecting the books of account. CIT (A) relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 which says that the best judgment assessment must make an honest and fair estimate of income of the assessee and though arbitrariness cannot be avoided in such estimate, the same must not be capricious but should have a reasonable nexus to the available material and the circumstances of the case. CIT (A) confirmed the addition to an extent of ₹ 5,15,115/=, however, the amount of ₹ 57,04,983/= was directed to be deleted. When approached befor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eason. The books of account of the assessee are audited. With the return of income, the assessee has filed audited P&L Account, balance sheet and audit report. The ld. CIT (A) called the remand report from the Assessing Officer, this remand report was forwarded to the assessee for his comments and after considering the comments of the assessee, in our opinion, the ld. CIT (A) is legally and factually correct in deleting the additions to the tune of ₹ 57,04,983/= and ₹ 23,30,814/= out of total addition of ₹ 62,20,098/= and ₹ 26,64,814/= made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. We are, therefore, inclined to uphold the order of the learned CIT (A)." Both the authorities, since have concurrently held .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X