Commissioner Of Income Tax-Viii vs M/S Paradise Holidays on 28 April, 2010
2.3 The Ld. CIT(A), in para 6.2.6, noted that Ld. AO considered
unaudited Profit & Loss Account as extracted from the tally software
during the course of survey and compared the same with audited Profit &
Loss Account. However, the books of the assessee were subjected to
Tax Audit u/s 44AB and no discrepancies were found the in books of
account. In fact, the books were not rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act.
Reference was made to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
case of CIT vs. Paradise Holidays (325 ITR 13) holding the onus was in
revenue to show that either the books were incomplete or incorrect and
the method of accounting as adopted by the assessee was such that
profits of the assessee could not be deduced therefrom. In the present
case, Ld. AO did not demonstrate any specific defects in the books of the
assessee and did not render any such finding that the books did not give
clear picture of the profit earned by the assessee. Accordingly, the
impugned addition was deleted against which the department is in further
appeal before us.