M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE Revenue has filed the instant appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order dt. Tribunal') in ITA No. 34/Chandi/2003 in respect of asst. yr. 1999 -2000. It has been claimed that the following questions of law would arise for the determination of this Court : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was legally right to uphold the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by AO by applying the provisions of s. 145(3) of the IT Act rejecting the books of account where the trading results declared were not found to be correct because of various discrepancies ? As such, findings given by the Hon'ble Tribunal are perverse and it is a settled law that on perversity a question of law arises.
(2.) WHETHER on the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble Tribunal was correct on holding that the commission paid to Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, a close relative of managing director, was right as he was rendering service in lieu of commission paid - 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings under s. 143(3) of the Act, the AO on examination of books of account of the assessee found various discrepancies which when confronted to the assessee no satisfactory explanation was filed by him. Manufacturing cost of non -alloy steel has been calculated by the assessee at two different rates and the sale price on the same product has been charged at far excess rates than its own manufacturing cost whereas in certain cases it is even less than its own cost price. Further, on examination of the stock register, it was found by the AO that the assessee has not mentioned different types of goods manufactured but as per sale vouchers there were so many different brands of finished goods which were sold at different values. As the trading results declared by the assessee were much variable, by applying the provisions of s. 145(3) of the Act, the AO rejected books of account and GP rate of 8.5 per cent was applied on the enhanced sale of Rs. 21,07,62,315 which gives gross profit of Rs. 1,79,84,797 as against Rs. 1,24,41,696 declared and an addition of Rs. 54,73,108 was made. It was also noticed by the AO that the commission of Rs. 1,48,659 was paid to Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, a close relative of managing director which was disallowed as the assessee failed to justify the genuineness. Aggrieved by the order of the AO by holding that the AO has not pointed out any defects in the books of account and that Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was rendering service in lieu of which he was paid commission. Being not satisfied with the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed by the Tribunal by relying upon various judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal in para 9 held that there is a clear -cut finding by the learned CIT(A) that no discrepancies were pointed out in the maintenance of accounts by the AO [who was present before the learned CIT(A)], the sales have been duly accounted for in the books of account and the assessee had given sufficient reasons for charging higher rate from various parties depending upon the quality of the material and payment terms. Regarding purchase from M/s Mangat Rai Manohar Lal, no irregularity was found. The Tribunal further held that there is no dispute to the fact that even the Department of Excise has not doubted the genuineness of the transaction. The submission with regard to payment of brokerage of Rs. 1,48,659 to Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that this issue was adjudicated upon in the case of assessee itself in respect of the asst. yr. 1998 -99, wherein the appeal was dismissed.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the orders passed by the AO, CIT(A) and the Tribunal, we do not find that there is any perversity in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have gone into detail in discussing the evidence and recording conclusion after appreciating the same. On the basis of the evidence it has been concluded by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal that no discrepancy could be found in the maintenance of accounts. It has further been recorded that the AO who was present before the CIT(A) could not point out any such discrepancy in the maintenance of accounts and that the assessee had given sufficient reasons for various entries. Therefore, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under s. 260A of the Act cannot reappreciate evidence to reach a conclusion other than the one recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. There is thus no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.;