Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In the written submissions of the assessee, it was submitted by the assessee that reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High court in the case of Jaimal Ram & Party Vs CIT as reported in 172 Taxman 228.

5. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the judgement cited by the assessee in his written submissions. We find that it is noted by the A.O. in para 3.1 of the assessment order that during this year, the assessee has declared G.P. @ 10.20% as against 17.21% in the preceding year i.e. assessment year 2004-05. The A.O. asked the assessee to explain the reason for fall in G.P. with supporting documentary evidence. The A.O. further noted in para 3.2 of the assessment order that the assessee vide letter dated 20.11.2007, has simply stated that the G.P. ratio is decreased due to decline in sales turnover and increase in purchase cost of raw material. The A.O. further confronted the assessee on this issue and as per the letter dated 04.12.2007, the assessee furnished some purchase bills for the present year and comparative rates for the last year to substantiate the claim of increase in cost of purchases but with regard to reduction in sale price of the products manufactured by the assessee, assessee did not furnish any supporting evidence. The A.O. was not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee and he rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act and adopted the same G.P. rate of 17.21% which was shown by the assessee in the preceding year and on this basis, he made addition of Rs.4,02,445/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A). It was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) that in the absence of stock register, he is of the opinion that rejection of books of account does not call for any interference but regarding the addition made by the A.O., he upheld the addition of Rs.2,01,223/- only to the extent of 50% of the addition made by the A.O. Now, before us, the only argument of the assessee is the reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of Jaimal Ram & Party (supra). We find that reliance has been wrongly placed by the assessee on this judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court because this judgement is against the assessee. In that case, it was held by Hon'ble Rajasthan High court that when net profit of the assessee in the immediately preceding year was quite high in comparison to net profit rate shown by the assessee in the relevant year and although the assessee produces books of accounts but the assessee admittedly did not produce stock register and sale bills, trading addition of Rs.22 lacs cannot be said to be unjustified or arbitrary. Hence, this judgment is of no help to the assessee in the present case rather it covers the issue against the assessee because in the present case also, the assessee has not produced stock register and also did not produce sale bills to establish that the sale price in the present year is lower as compared to the preceding year. In the grounds of appeal also, the assessee has placed reliance on several judgments but these judgements are also of no help to the assessee in the present case because the facts are different. In those cases, it was held that arbitrary addition straightforward on the ground of low profit is not permissible but in the present case, the A.O. has given reasoning in addition to the fact that the G.P. rate shown by the assessee is lesser and the A.O. has noted that the assessee did not maintain stock register and did not produce any evidence to substantiate this contention that the sale price in the present year is lower as compared to the preceding year. In view of this factual finding of the A.O., which could not be controverted by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) or before us, various judgments cited by the assessee in the grounds of appeal are also of no help to the assessee in the present case. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A).