only ground involved in this appeal is as under: "On facts and in circumstances of case CIT (A) erred in reducing income by Rs. 2,83,416." assessee is registered partnership firm deriving income from country liquor contract business. During year licence fee of Rs. 30,42,101 was paid in respect of contract for nine shops at Ujjain. While making assessment under s. 143(3)/144-B of IT Act, ITO found that there was no restriction by Madhya Pradesh Government on sale price of liquor, assessee was free to sell liquor at price of his choice and, therefore, even though assessee maintained books of accounts and examined by him, according to him, trading results were not verifiable as sale vouchers were not maintained. After considering submissions of assessee, he applied proviso to s. 145 so as to determine income on estimate basis. He estimated sales at 2 1/2 times of licence fee which came to Rs. 76,05,252 and on estimating net profit at 8 per cent, adopted income of Rs. 6,08,416 for purpose of taxation. On appeal, pleas taken by ITO were repeated and CIT (A) gave his finding in paras 1.11 and 1.12 of his order as under: (I) Regarding rate of GP he held that profitability and quantum in respect of sales vary from place to place and, therefore, cases in respect of liquor contractor in city like Indore could not be compared with case under consideration as done by ITO. rate adopted by ITO was on basis of Tribunal s decision in case of Indore Group of cases which were decided in certain back-ground and fact that in those cases search operation were carried out weighed heavily with assessing authorities as well as Tribunal. This factor is totally absent in case of assessee. (ii) After going through records in respect of profitability and sales as per accounts, according to him, results were better in case of Indore Group of shops than those in Ujjain and other mofussil group of shops. (iii) In respect of system of accounting, when sales are not supported by vouchers, sales version cannot be verified and, therefore proviso of s. 145(1) were applicable. (iv) After considering various cases relied upon by assessee in respect of dealers in liquor and decided by Tribunal, he applied rate of 5 per cent to estimated sales of Rs. 65,00,000 so as to grant relief of Rs. 2,83,416. At time of hearing ld. departmental representative submitted chart showing net profit rate in cases of country liquor in respect of various assessment years. This very assessee in earlier two years showed more than 8 per cent net profit but this year same was shown at 4.76 per cent. Justifying estimate made by ITO, ratio of licence fee to sales applicable in various years was brought to our notice and it was suggested that this year it fell down from 1:3.25 to 1:2.07 and ITO estimated at 1:2.50 and applied rate of 8 per cent of net profit. In respect of asst. yr. 1979-80, it was clarified that assessee had shown 6.12 and matter was pending before CIT(A). Again in case of another firm wherein some of partners were common for asst. yr. 1980-81 and subsequent years rate of net profit shown was little less than 8 per cent. Commenting upon observations by CIT(A) in para 1.11 regarding method of accounting and facts of liquor contracts remaining same every where irrespective of area it was stated that CIT(A) was in error subsequently holding that net profit rate in mofussil area would be lower than that obtained in city like Indore. Again there was no special feature, this year so as to deviate from past history. major grievance of Revenue was that CIT(A) had not decided on basis of history of case. ld. counsel for assessee very kly opposed submissions made by ld. departmental representative and while supporting order passed by CIT(A) made grievance in respect of confirming applicability of proviso to s. 145(1). He also raised grievance in respect of method of estimation by taking multiple of licence fee. Alternatively only purchases should be base for purpose of estimation. Again assessee conducted business through salesmen at nine different shops in Ujjain and round about places. partners are resident of places away from places of business and all are from different families and have their independent business and, therefore, they are not in position to conduct day-to-day business of assessee. salesmen are appointed under service contract as intimated to Excise authorities. In respect of policy matters of sales and fixation of prices, decisions are taken by partners well in advance subject to revision depending upon trend of business and fulfilment of minimum guarantee in respect of off- take of quantity of liquor as per terms of licence. sales are required to be made in sealed packing as supplied by breweries under supervision of Excise Department. Every salesman incharge of shop is required to render statement of sales showing opening quantity receipt of goods during tax day and closing stock from day together with sale price, of goods sold and expenditure of day. daily sale is subject to surprise checking by visiting partners. sale rates are required to be accepted as per Excise Rules on notice board conspicuously shown outside shop. From various shops details received are collection in Central office and cash is received by employees of firm who entered transactions in regular books of accounts, thus ensuring checking by another set of employees, purchases are verifiable because same are through Excise Department from their warehouses under payment of challans into Government Treasury. It is thus claimed that there is no room for invoking proviso to s. 145(1) of Act nor any estimation in respect of either sales or net profit. only defect found out by Department was non-maintenance of sales voucher which could be fatal to case of assessee. In reply, ld. departmental representative relied upon some comparable cases and stated that even when sale vouchers are not maintained proviso to s. 145(1) of Act was required to be invoked. In our opinion stand taken by ld. counsel for assessee is required to be upheld. reasons are as follows: (I) No doubt history of case would be best guide so as to evaluate result shown in assessment year under consideration. But for that purpose dissimilarities, if any, are required to be considered and proper adjustments after giving weightage are made. In this case authorities below have restored to estimation of net profit because of low net profit. But it appears that only factor contributing to lower margin of net profit is admitted figure of payment in respect of licence fee of Rs. 30,42,101 against payment in last year of Rs. 18,75,000. This itself makes difference of Rs. 11,67,101. If this aspect is taken into consideration, net profit percentage would go well above 6 1\2 per cent. In asst. yr. 1979-80 net profit rate was 6.12 per cent which according to assessee was accepted by ITO though, however, according to ld. departmental representative matter is pending before CIT(A) and, therefore, we would not proceed on basis that net profit percentage was accepted by Revenue but we would only take this aspect into consideration that as per books assessee showed 6.12 per cent approximately in year under consideration. (ii) Regarding method adopted by way of proportion of sales to licence fee, we are in entire agreement with ld. counsel that this method is erroneous. Apart from being erroneous, it would be misleading at times because there are very many factors which fluctuate sale of liquor spread over entire year because auction in respect of licence fee is completed before year begins. In case of any business results depend upon many features which are too obvious to enumerate and, therefore, only one static factor cannot be made base for purpose of evaluating performance of business in given year. (iii) From copy of letter written to ITO by assessee on 18th Jan., 1981 we find that aggregate liquor should in asst. yr. 1977-78 was of 3,11,480 litres for sale price of Rs. 54.47 lacs. As against this, in year under consideration, sale of liquor was 2,98,596 litres for sale price of Rs. 63.24 lacs. This clearly establishes fact that performance shown by assessee is better than earlier year on which Revenue authorities very kly rely. When such exact date regarding quantity are available it would be fallacious to hammer upon percentage of net profit reflected by assessee. After all businessman may prove wrong in judgment, in this case having paid more fabulous prices for current year business in anticipation. When we are on this point we would like to mention that in this line of business, still branded with social stigma on visitors to shop as well when considered still branded with social stigma on visitors to shop as well when considered from way of like of society in India, impact is also required to be judged of Government philosophy. assessee s accounting year begins in April, 1977 ending with March, 1978. In Feb., 1977 results regarding Government to be headed by Hon ble Shri Morarji Desai were out. election was preceded by campaign by person no less than late Shri J.P. Narayan, whose ideas on drinking are too well known to be repeated. Hence impact resulting in adverse effect (or favourable effect) from revenue s point of view is required to be considered and weighed, exercise which we refrain to undertake impact of this aspect is not considered by authorities below. (iv) From case as developed and stated before authorities below with regard to system of accounting followed and supervision together with in built checks provided by Excise authorities judged in context of nature of business, it would be futile to reject books results only in basis that duplicate vouchers in respect of sales are not maintained without bringing on record single instance of any bottle of liquor having been sold at rate higher than displayed on notice board. Merely because there is possibility or there was scope for assessee to sell at higher rate, cannot be base to disregard books results when books are otherwise fully reliable. Again in this very case way in which business is conducted, conspicuously reflecting organisational aspects lends full support to case of assessee and in no way extends any support to justify apprehension shown by ITO. (v) We, therefore, set aside order passed by CIT (A) and direct ITO to accept book results as shown by assessee. While deciding this aspect, we have also considered aspect, regarding expenses as mentioned i n order passed by ITO. With regard allowability or otherwise of expenditure only, we would restore matter to file of ITO to decide issue afresh regarding disallowables, if any. For this purpose he shall give proper opportunity to assessee to lead evidence and then pass order in accordance with law. In cross objection filed by assessee grounds taken are as follows: "1. On facts and in circumstances of case, authorities below have erred in invoking power under proviso to s. 145(1) of IT Act, 1961, to facts of appellant case. rejection of books of accounts is arbitrary, illegal and totally uncalled for. estimate of sale at Rs. 65 lacs as against declared sales of Rs. 63,24,600 is arbitrary, without material and lacks judicial basis. Likewise application of net profit rate of 5 per cent on estimated sales of Rs. 65 lacs is arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. enhancement of profit from Rs. 3,01,270 (declared) to Rs. 3,25,000 (assessed by CIT (A) is quite arbitrary, biased, prejudicial and vindictive in nature simply to harass assessee for nothing", We have already dealt with issues involved in above and have, therefore, recorded our judgment stated above. In result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by assessee is allowed in part for statistical purpose. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. OMPRAKASH PREMCHAND & CO.