- (1.) THE only question raised in the instant appeal is that the books of accounts have been wrongly rejected by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and ITAT.
(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that books of accounts could not have been rejected in view of the Audit Report and Report of C.A. Error has been committed by the concerned authorities and the ITAT, while rejecting the books of accounts. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. The reasons assigned by the CIT(A) for rejection of books of accounts are that the appellant did not maintain the consumption register for stores, spares and consumables as well as for packing material. In absence of standard production and standard consumption of the raw material, the same is also not verifiable because the raw material is purchased in terms of tones, while the finished production has been shown in terms of meters. Hence, the CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer, rejecting the books of accounts.
(3.) THE ITAT has also observed that it was not possible to verify the raw material consumed and the items purchased; it was also not possible to work out the exact consumption of the raw material vis a vis production. It was also not possible to verify the expenditure incurred on taking the material. Hence, order passed by the Assessing Officer and the findings recorded by the CIT(A) have been upheld by the ITAT.;