No.- Income Tax Appeal Nos. 158, 193, 199 and 684 of 2008

M. N. Bhandari And J. K. Ranka, JJ.

For the Appellants : P. K. Kasliwal and Naresh Gupta
For the Respondents : Nikhil Simlote on behalf of R. B. Mathur, O. P. Pareek on behalf of Anuroop Singhi and Sandeep Pathak, Advocates

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the court was delivered by

J. K. Ranka, J.- These appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") at the instance of the assessee are directed against orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short "ITAT"). It is relevant for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 respectively, but being based on the identical substantial questions of law, have been heard together and are being decided by common order with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

2. Brief facts noticed for disposal of these appeals are that the assessee's are association of persons (AOP) and are carrying on the business of sale of country liquor under rules 67(1) and 67(KK) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 and retail sale of beer and Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) under rule 3A of the Rajasthan Foreign Liquor (Grant of Wholesale and Retail sale Licences) Rules, 1982 under exclusive privilege system.

3. The present appeals were admitted by this court on the following substantial questions of law :
D. B. I. T. A. No. 684 of 2008
"(i) Whether on the facts and in totality of the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the trading addition as a result of necessary concomitant of the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) ignoring the ratio laid down by this hon'ble court in case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog reported in [2002] 256 ITR 243 (Raj) ?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in totality of the circumstances of the case and in law, in the proceedings under section 145(3) read with section 144 of the Act, addition made without any basis of computation as also without establishing nexus thereof with the available facts and circumstances if permissible in law ?

(iii) Whether on the facts and in totality of the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal acted on total misconception of law in sustaining the rejection of the books of account for want of stock register and sale bills having overlooked the provisions of sections 44AA and 145(3) of the Act and rule 6F of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?"

D. B. I. T. A. No. 193 of 2008
"(i) Whether the learned Income-tax authorities below were justified in making/sustaining the addition of Rs. 22,48,051 as a result of necessary concomitant of the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) in view of the ratio laid down by this hon'ble court in case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog reported in [2002] 256 ITR 243 (Raj) ?

(ii) whether in the proceedings under section 145(3) read with section 144 of the Act, addition of Rs. 22,84,051 made without any basis of computation as also without establishing nexus thereof with the available facts and circumstances is permissible in law ?"

D. B. I. T. A. No. 199 of 2008
"(i) Whether in learned Income-tax authorities below were justified in making/sustaining the addition as a result of necessary concomitant of the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) in view of the ratio laid down by this hon'ble court in case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog reported in [2002] 256 ITR 243 (Raj) ?

(ii) Whether the trading addition made without there being established the same to have been earned by the appellant during the year under consideration being a national, hypothetical or unreal addition the levy and recovery of Income-tax thereon is permissible ?

(iii) Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not giving the telescoping benefit of the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 as sustained on account of disallowance of expenses qua the trading addition as sustained at a higher figure ?"

D. B. I. T. A. No. 158 of 2008
"(i) Whether the learned Income-tax authorities below were justified in making/sustaining the addition as a result of necessary concomitant of the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) in view of the ratio laid down by this hon'ble court in case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog reported in [2002] 256 ITR 243 (Raj) ?

(ii) Whether in the proceedings under section 145(3) read with section 144 of the Act, addition of Rs. 25,00,000 made without any basis of computation as also without establishing nexus thereof with the available facts and circumstances is permissible in law ?"

4. The facts of appeal in the case of Chaturbhuj Manoj Kumar v. CIT (D. B. I. T. A. 684 of 2008) for the assessment year 2000-01 are being considered, as admittedly in all the appeals, the assessees are engaged in liquor trade and all the assessees had bid in an open auction of the State Excise Department and obtained licence for selling Indian made foreign liquor, beer and country liquor was a retailer of different Districts. All the assessees were required under the Rajasthan Excise Rules to pay the tender amount by purchasing the goods equivalent thereto and in case of failure to make adequate purchases, to deposit the deficit by way of short licence fee. The country liquor is sold by the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., an undertaking of the Rajasthan Government to the assessees through the depots of Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Limited while the Indian made foreign liquor and beer is made available from distillery/ wholesaler against the permits issued by the Excise Department. The sale price is however not fixed by the State Excise Department.

5. In the instant appeals following table is relevant to show the salient features of the business :

6. The Assessing Officer examined the books of account and other supporting material produced by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer not satisfied with the way in which the books of account were maintained as well as non production of the vouchers mainly relating to the sale of the country liquor or/and Indian made foreign liquor/beer and was of the opinion that when the record has not been properly maintained therefore, profit cannot be properly deduced on such accounts and on the basis of such non maintenance/non production of the sale vouchers, the total turnover which was shown apparently had no basis and was rather on estimate basis, could not have been accepted and when the sale version was not open to verification then the books of account were liable to be rejected by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. Though the Assessing Officer found that the purchases can be said to be vouched as it was purchased from the Government undertakings or/and other distilleries, but the sales version was totally manipulated. It was also noticed that the assessees did not maintain brand wise and size wise quantitative details of various bottles/pouches. The Assessing Officer also noticed that even stock registers was not produced which could prove the availability of stock on a particular day or/and at the end of the close of the year and by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the Act, he sought to arrive at proper profits and had also noticed that on a huge turnover in crores in almost all the cases as per the chart given hereinbefore, return of income was negligible/ very low in proportion to even the sale version by the assessee and even in some of the concerns even loss was declared. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued. Reply was filed and the assessee vide letter dated March 22, 2002 admitted that the defects were there. Taking into consideration the admission by the assessee that the defects were there, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the defects having been noticed and admitted by the assessee himself, it was enough to render the figures in trading account as well as in the profit and loss account unreliable and untrustworthy, for the simple reason that the actual sale rate per bottle was not verifiable and the brand wise and size wise details were unavailable. The figure of sale render themselves liable for manipulation. It was also noticed that in similarly situated other traders even the Tribunal found that the defects are there and provisions of section 145(3) were applicable. The Assessing Officer taking into consideration other similarly situated liquor traders estimated the sales turnover and applied a particular gross profit rate and thus made trading addition in the country liquor account as well as the Indian made foreign liquor and beer account.

7. The assessee being not satisfied with the additions assailed the said order before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), though the issue about invoking of provisions of section 145(3) was specifically challenged before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, at the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee himself did not press the ground relating to the provisions of section 145(3) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while granting partial relief upheld the rejection of the books of account and dealing with the issue observed in para. 4 as under :

"However, the learned authorised representative expressed that he is not pressing for this ground of appeal as the appellate authorities are constantly holding the provisions of section 145(3) are applicable in liquor cases. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed."

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was however of the opinion that the income assessed by the Assessing Officer was higher, therefore, reduced the trading addition.

8. Both the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer being not satisfied, preferred appeals/cross objections and the Tribunal vide the impugned order taking into consideration almost 13 cases decided by the Tribunal in similarly situated traders in the same line of business applied a particular gross profit rate in the country liquor account as well as Indian made foreign liquor/beer. The Tribunal was however satisfied that the estimated sales adopted by the Assessing Officer was fair on account of non maintenance of sales vouchers and for the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer sustained the additions as per chart hereinabove.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended before this court that there was no justification of rejecting the books of account as the same was maintained properly and in accordance with law, all purchases are vouched and merely because sale vouchers are not maintained is no reason to reject the books of account and in the alternative he contended that once the books of account are rejected whether it should result into an addition? He contended that it is not necessary that even in a case of rejection of books of account, addition is required to be made. He relied upon the judgment rendered by this court in the case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog [2002] 256 ITR 243 (Raj). He further contended that the addition even otherwise cannot be made as all the three authorities have overlooked the provisions of sections 44AA and 145(3) and rule 6F of the Income-tax Rules of 1962. He further contended that the Assessing Officer had no basis/evidence to assume estimation of sales which was drastically increased by the Assessing Officer. He further contended that the trading results are fair and reasonable. There was no justification for the Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal ultimately in making trading addition.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that earlier this court in the bunch of cases of liquor traders, in the case of CIT v. Ram Singh [2014] 363 ITR 417 (Raj) held that the order of the Tribunal was non speaking and without any discussion or/and even arguments of both the sides were not considered and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide afresh on the merits and thus prayed for remanding these matters as well.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue contended that all the three authorities have rightly rejected the books of account, even as per the admission of the assessee and even the assessee had no basis for adopting the sales figure and book results were held to be manipulated by all the three authorities therefore, the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal taking into consideration identical cases rightly applied particular gross profit rate and supported the order of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Revenue also contended that when this court in the case of CIT v. Ram Singh (supra) found the orders to be non speaking, therefore, the court was constrained to remand the matter to the Tribunal but at least in these cases, there is ample finding by the Tribunal and the case should not be remanded and contended that the addition made even otherwise is negligible looking to the huge turnover.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned orders as also the orders of the authorities below.

13. Admittedly, the books of account have been found to be defective and even as per the admission of the counsel for the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and in not pressing the same, therefore, in so far as the argument of the counsel for the assessee, it is out-rightly rejected and we hold that the books of account were rightly rejected for the reasons assigned by all the three authorities. Needless to mention in the case of CIT v. Ram Singh (supra), this court while remanding the matter to the Tribunal expressly noticed that even the counsel who appeared before this court in the case of CIT v. Ram Singh had admitted that the provisions of section 145(3) are applicable and once there was a clear admission by the counsel arguing before this court, this court did not go into the said finding further, therefore, to reiterate and to raise the same issue again by the counsel for the assessee appears to be unjust, particularly even when before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) this question was not pressed. Therefore, the said ground ought not to have been raised before the Tribunal and again before this court.

14. Once there is a clear cut finding by the Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal that the books version cannot be relied on at all and the entire accounts were manipulated, the Assessing Officer or/and the Tribunal, in our view, had correctly gone into some estimation/guess work by invoking provisions of section 145(3) or in a case of a best judgment assessment under section 144, some guess work will always have to be resorted to by the authorities. However, the same should also be based on some material and should not be arbitrary or without any material. The Tribunal so also other authorities had considered the similarly situated identical liquor traders in this very line of business as the basis to sustain some addition as even the Assessing Officer had some comparable cases to rely upon. The learned Assessing Officer had taken into consideration the cases of Kanhaiya Lal Kailash Chand (I. T. A. No. 1549/3 P/97), Shakuntala Kanwar Khetri (I. T. A. No. 200/JP/1998), B.M.D. Khan, M/s. Tek Singh Sandu Singh and Partners, Hanumangarh, (I. T. A. No. 1503 and 2200/JP/1994) respectively which were decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. We have already noticed that the Tribunal has not only considered the cases relied upon by the Assessing Officer but took into consideration other latest orders of the Tribunal which were decided by the Tribunal in near vicinity of the matter disposed of, in the instant appeal. The Tribunal has also given a reference of 13 cases and after taking into consideration findings in 13 cases in addition to the cases taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer, had also given elaborate finding while applying a particular gross profit rate in the country liquor account as well as the Indian made foreign liquor and beer accounts. It would be appropriate to quote the findings by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and relevant para. Nos. 6 and 7 are quoted hereunder :

"6. As regards the estimation of income, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the various case law who had declared the gross profit rate up to 77.78 per cent. in the case of country liquor and 26 per cent. in the caseIndian made foreign liquor and beer. The comparable cases do not help much to estimate the income in the cases of such trade. The various decisions have been relied upon by the Assessing Officer. The learned authorised representative has also relied upon various decisions in support of this claim. As a matter of fact, different assessees are declaring different gross profit. Since in almost all the cases in such trade, sales are unvouched and sales are entered in the books of account as per the convenience of the assessee and accordingly the gross profit rate is also declared as per the convenience of the assessee. The Tribunal has held the application of different gross profit rate in different cases and few of them are cited as under :

7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the other hand has estimated the lump sum addition in the case of country liquor and Indian made foreign liquor and beer without any basis and no cogent reasoning has been given while making the estimates and while sustaining the addition in lump sum and it appears that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has made the estimates to allow the relief to the assessee. The order of the Assessing Officer appears to be reasoned one since he has relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal in support of his order. As observed by us hereinbefore that the Tribunal has held different gross profit rate in different cases mentioned hereinbefore, in the circumstances and facts of the present case, and various decisions relied upon herein before and the decisions relied upon by the Assessing Officer and by the learned authorised representative it will be in the interest of justice if the gross profit rate of 55 per cent. is applied in the case of country liquor at the estimated sales by the Assessing Officer and 22.5 per cent. in the case of Indian made foreign liquor and beer at the estimated sales by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to act accordingly."

This court noticed in the case of CIT v. Ram Singh (supra) that most of the appeals were disposed of in either six lines/eight lines without even referring to the submissions of the counsel for the parties and this court has quoted and reproduced some of the orders of the Tribunal. While we notice that in the instant case the Tribunal's findings are elaborate and consider submissions of both the sides and with reasoning the appeal has been disposed, therefore, we see no reason to remand the order.

15. Learned counsel for the assessee has been unable to rebut or to counter as to how the 13 cases decided by the Tribunal and taken note of and considered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are distinguishable from the facts of the instant appeals or otherwise. When there is no arguments of the counsel for the assessee as to how 13 cases were distinguishable or/and even the judgments which were taken into consideration by the Assessing officer were distinguishable, we find no reason to interfere in the finding of the Tribunal which is basically a finding of fact. We have already expressed earlier that when the books of account are rejected under section 145(3) and in a best judgment assessment under section 144 some guess work is required to be applied to come to a reasonable conclusion and it should be on some basis/reasoning, however, in the instant cases, we find that the Tribunal has not gone on assumptions or presumptions though ultimately there is an estimation of gross profit rate but after considering other identical similarly situated traders, dealing in the same line of business therefore, the Tribunal had basis to apply a particular gross profit rate in both the country liquor account as well as the Indian made foreign liquor/ beer account.

16. The facts in the case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog relied upon by the counsel for the assessee is that the Assessing Officer held that the books of account are not reliable and invoked provisions of section 145(3) of the Act while the Assessing Officer made trading addition to the tune of Rs. 3,34,960 by adopting a higher gross profit rate, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustained an addition of Rs. 34,000 which was also deleted by the Tribunal. On a Departmental appeal, this court found that the addition was made "to cover up the possible leakages in the books of account of unverifiability", the addition was made merely on suspicion of pilferage or leakages and this court noticed that the finding of the Tribunal was based on the finding of fact and not giving rise to any question of law whereas in the instant case, the Tribunal has come to a definite finding of fact based on the other cases decided in the same line of business and by making comparison of facts of the appeal of the assessee with those of the other similarly situated liquor traders, therefore, the judgment in Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog (supra) is distinguishable.

17. Learned counsel for the assessee has also raised the issue about overlooking of provisions of section 44AA as also rule 6F of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, though it does not arise out of any of the three orders therefore, we would have refrained in dealing with it but since counsel vehemently argued therefore we would also consider the same. We fail to understand as to how these provisions are applicable at all in the instant case of liquor traders particularly when section 44AA applies to a person carrying on legal, medical, engineering or architectural profession or the profession of accountancy or technical consultancy or interior decoration or any other profession as is notified by the Board in the Official Gazette and they are required to maintain such books of account and other documents as is required under the Act, however, in our view, in the instant case, the said provisions are inapplicable as the assessee is not carrying on any of profession referred to in section 44AA. To say that liquor trade would fall in the category of section 44AA would indeed be too much. The assessee has also claimed that the accounts were audited and in our view, once the claim is that accounts are audited under section 44AB of the Act, then it is mandatory that the books of account have to be properly maintained along with supporting vouchers including sale and purchase vouchers. The chartered accountant auditing the accounts has to satisfy himself about the correctness and completeness of the books of account and has to examine not only the books of account but also the sale/purchase vouchers. Admittedly in the instant cases sales vouchers have not been maintained, therefore, the auditor has audited accounts without properly examining the books of account or/and vouchers, it even otherwise proves that the said audit report is factually incorrect and merely supports the version of the assessee which has himself manipulated the accounts. Audit of accounts is merely an eyewash and paper compliance. Section 44AA and rule 6F prescribes maintenance of books by persons carrying on the profession/business referred to hereinabove, but in our view, all other persons have to maintain complete books of account in accordance with law along with complete vouchers not only of purchase but also of sales as also other vouchers relating to the expenses or/and any expenditure claimed by the assessee. The onus of maintaining proper books of account lies upon the assessee. Audit of accounts presupposes that the assessee has maintained proper books of account and vouchers or if the books of account are not maintained or/and vouchers are not available, the chartered accountant possibly cannot do audit and is required to put a qualification in such an eventuality, therefore, in our view, the arguments of the counsel are worth rejection and accordingly rejected. We refrain our self from mentioning anything more at this juncture.

18. We after taking note of the results tabulated in para 5 hold that on facts the addition sustained by the Tribunal had proper basis of comparing the cases of the assessee with other similarly situated liquor traders. Accordingly, in our view, the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and all the questions raised by the assessee are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

19. Though we have dismissed all the appeals of the appellant-assessee including D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 193 of 2008 and D. B. I. T. A. No. 199 of 2008 (Rajaram v. CIT) both appeals by assessee only, however, after having perused the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, it goes to show the casual approach of the Revenue officers concerned in the matters like this. The Tribunal disposed of this appeal in July, 2006 and around that time, the Revenue was invariably filing appeals in this court even where petty tax was involved. Though, in the instant case, the Assessing Officer made a trading addition of about Rs. 7,28,61,924 and Rs. 10,47,89,190 respectively, however, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted trading addition of about Rs. 6,58,12,665 and Rs. 10.25 crores respectively. The Assessing Officer estimated the turnover of Rs. 34,48,01,640 as against Rs. 27,76,91,665 in D. B. I. T. A. No. 193 of 2008 and Rs. 52,79,05,381 as against Rs. 42,41,87,891 in D. B. I. T. A. No. 199 of 2008 on the premise that the sale version had no basis and after rejecting the books of account, the turnover was taken by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 34,48,01,640 and Rs. 52,79,85,301 respectively. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) though observes that the turnover by the Assessing Officer was estimated at Rs. 34,48,01,640, however, in para. 18 of its order, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considers only the sales figure as shown by the assessee and we find that there is no discussion or finding on the enchanced turnover of about Rs. 6,71,09,975 (Rs. 34,48,01,640 Rs. 27,76,91,665) similarly in D. B. I. T. A. No. 199 of 2008 there is no whisper about even enhanced turnover or any finding and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), bases its decision on the disclosed turnover and simply mentions "Therefore, the addition to extent of Rs. 12,97,310 on the declared sales and net profit is sustained and the balance addition of Rs. 7,28,61,924 - Rs. 70,49,259 - Rs. 6,58,12,655 is deleted (relief Rs. 6,58,12,665)". In D. B. I. T. A. No. 199 of 2008, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustains only addition of Rs. 19,81,705 and deletes addition of about Rs. 10.25 crores.

20. Both the Revenue as well as the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal though the Tribunal at page 1 of the impugned order mentions that the declared sales is Rs. 14,09,85,178, however, in para 2 mentions that the Assessing Officer estimated the total turnover at Rs. 34,48,01,640 and also mentions that the total addition made by the Assessing Officer was Rs. 7,28,61,924 and the Tribunal in para 4 also observed that "the turnover declared by the assessee was to the extent of Rs. 27,76,91,665, however, the Assessing Officer estimated the turnover to the extent of Rs. 34,48,01,640 and again while granting relief, takes into consideration the figure of total turnover to be at only Rs. 14,09,85,178 and ignores enhanced turnover and it would be appropriate to quote this portion as well :

"Considering these factors and the location of the territory of business of the assessee, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has applied net profit rate of 5 per cent. on the total turn over of Rs. 14,09,85,178 and the loss, if any, derived by the assessee on Indian made foreign liquor and beer business has been ignored. He has, accordingly, worked net profit of Rs. 70,49,259 as against Rs. 57,51,948 declared by the assessee. The learned authorised rep resentative has given instances of Rajaram Hazari Ram v. Asst CIT, decided by the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal (supra), wherein the net profit rate after second appeal effect was just 0.27 per cent. He has also given other instance in the case of Rajaram and Party (Thanagaji Group) for the assessment year 1998-99, wherein the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had applied net profit rate of 0.30 per cent., which has been upheld by this Bench of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 258/JP/2000-01, a copy of which has been furnished. The learned authorised representative has, however, not pointed out as to how the facts and circumstances of those cases are similar to the present case. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) appears to have rightly applied the net profit rate of 5 per cent. on the declared turn over but ignoring the loss, if any, derived by the assessee on Indian made foreign liquor and beer business, however, keeping in view the objection raised by the learned Departmental representative in support of the Departmental appeal discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that a lump sum addition of Rs. 80,00,000 against Rs. 70,49,259 worked out by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Rs. 57,51,948 declared by the assessee will meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly."

21. Similar is the finding in D. B. I. T. A. No. 199 of 2008 where the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal again gives a finding to base addition on declared turnover but without any reasoning.

22. What we notice is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal both ignored or did not consider the turnover and there is no finding by both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal as to why the enhanced turnover was not considered for applying a particular gross profit rate.

23. We are conveyed that there are several checks and balances and order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal is sent to number of authorities up to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and others but none appears to have brought this fact to the knowledge about the mistake committed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. As noticed earlier, the Revenue used to file appeals in similar matters like this involving matters relating to liquor trade not only earlier but now as well but for the reasons best known, no action was taken by the Revenue in preferring appeal though 95 per cent. of the addition was deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal resulting into a relief of Rs. 6.58 crores and Rs. 10.25 crores respectively.

24. Equally important is the fact that when the question of law was admitted by this court on October 22, 2008, notices were sent to the Revenue and the Revenue had a chance to file cross-objection then too none cared to file. Even this factum was noticed by us while examining the records and was not brought to the notice of this court by the counsel for the Revenue. We need not comment anything further except to bring to the knowledge of the higher officials of the Revenue as to how casually important matters like this are taken care of and seriousness which should be attached to such matters is taken so lightly. While appeals which have hardly any impact are being filed as a matter of routine. It is prerogative of the Revenue to challenge or not to challenge the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to higher forum but there should be proper justification and reasoning when a decision is taken not to challenge the decisions of such heavy additions made by the Assessing Officer.

25. Copy of this order be sent to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi; Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

26. No costs. Copy of this order be placed in each connected file.