1. Heard Shri S.D.Singh, learned counsel for appellant and learned standing counsel for respondent.
2.This appeal under section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1961") has been preferred by Assessee appellant against order dated 16.12.2005 passed by Income Tax Tribunal, New Delhi Bench,'D' (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal").
3. The appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law:-
"Whether the reasons given by Tribunal are sufficient for reversing decision of CIT in the facts and circumstances of present case."
4. Assessing Officer found major discrepancies in absence of accounts books of Assessee and hence rejected the same and made certain additions. In appeal, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)") reversed assessment order, but Tribunal partly allowed appeal of Revenue and upheld rejection of accounts by Assessing Officer. Otherwise findings recorded by CIT(A) has been reversed by Tribunal but on the question of additions, it has remanded the matter to Assessing Officer, since in view of Tribunal, there was no material or basis to make such additions at a particular rate, thus, before us, the issue is confined to the rejection of accounts upheld by Tribunal.
5. From record, it is evident that scrap imported by appellant was largely in cash but in order to specify rates at which scrap was sold in cash and that too after segregation of scrap in various categories, no sufficient material was maintained or placed before Assessing Officer, to determine rates.
6. Names and addresses of purchasers were not mentioned in bill/cash memos. The details of transporter through whom goods were transported, were given, and one transporter whose name mentioned, was found wrong by Assessing Officer. Similarly, with regard to storage of scrap, Assessee admitted that he was storing the same in a godown, but address of godown was not found correct.
7. For all these facts and circumstances and considering the fact that Assessee concealed certain things, furnished wrong informations, transaction were made in cash, Assessing Officer found a justification for rejection of accounts and this has been up held by Tribunal holding that CIT (A) has taken a wrong view in reversing findings of Assessing Officer on this aspect.
8. Since all these facts noticed above are not shown to be incorrect and no error or misreading of documents or factual error has been pointed out, we are of the view that Tribunal was justified in upholding Assessing Officer's findings for rejection of accounts of Assessee and otherwise view of CIT(A) has rightly been reserved by Tribunal.
9. The question, formulated above is answered in favour of Revenue and against Assessee.
10. Appeal is accordingly, dismissed.