Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Having heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that though the turnover of the assessee decreased in comparison with the preceding year, the Assessing Officer did not conduct any enquiry as to the genuineness of sales made. Similarly as regards Job work payment, there was an increase to the tune of 131% and the assessee also furnished the details of job work payment. The Assessing Officer noticed that some of the addresses of the job workers were common. He, however, stopped short of conducting any further enquiry for ascertaining the genuineness of payment. Similarly, as regards Wages and labour, Excise/custom duty and Late delivery charges, the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's contention on whims and fancies without adducing any logical rationale. It can be seen from the reasons given by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the book results that he considered higher expenses/consumption as foundation for such rejection. Such types of issues are starting point and not a conclusion to reject books of accounts. If certain expenses are more, the Assessing Officer should get alert and try to find out the reasons for increase in the expenses. Mere fact that the sales are low or the expenses are higher, cannot be a ground for rejecting the books of accounts. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Shankar Rice Company vs. ITO 72 ITD 139 (Asr) (SB) has considered almost similar facts in which the books of accounts were rejected by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal finally held that such rejection of books of accounts and thereafter estimation of income, was not appropriate. This Special Bench decision has been followed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. R.K. Rice Mills (2009) 319 ITR 173 (P&H) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kohinoor Foods Limited (2015) 373 ITR 682 (Delhi). The learned CIT(A), in our considered opinion, has rightly appreciated the facts in coming to the conclusion that the books of accounts were properly maintained and the same could not be rejected. We, therefore, hold that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.