Though appeal was admitted on five substantial questions of law but M r . Kasliwal, counsel appearing for appellant-assessee submits that effective issue is in question No. 3, which reads as under: "Whether Tribunal was justified in sustaining addition at Rs. 1.50 lakhs on appeal filed by Revenue against order of CIT(A), irrespective of fact that Tribunal has accepted, that order passed by CIT(A) is reasoned one?" appellant is partnership firm and derived income from sale of liquor. appellant filed its IT return for asst. yr. 1985-86 declaring income of Rs. 50,000. notice under s. 143(2) of IT Act was issued to appellant and AO vide order dt. 29th March, 1990, while declining to accept book result, assessed net profit of appellant-assessee at rate of 3 per cent. AO estimated sales from Rs. 3,62,87,231 to Rs. 4,00,00,000, made addition of Rs. 12,00,000 and assessed income of assessee as Rs. 18,60,224. Challenging this order of AO, appellant-assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide its order dt. 23rd Oct., 1990 allowed appeal, set aside addition of Rs. 12,00,000 as made by AO and remitted case to AO to consider matter afresh. AO reconsidered matter and material placed before it and after considering material, estimated sales of assessee as Rs. 4,00,00,000 and after applying net profit at rate of 3 per cent made addition of Rs. 12,00,000 in income and after allowing depreciation, he assessed income of appellant as Rs. 18,12,289. assessee again filed appeal before CIT(A). CIT(A) reduced addition from Rs. 12,00,000 to Rs. 1,20,000. assessee has not chosen to challenge addition of Rs. 1,20,000. However, Department challenged order of CIT(A) in appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal ) whereby addition of Rs. 12,00,000 has been reduced to Rs. 1,20,000. Tribunal by impugned order has enhanced addition from Rs. 1,20,000 to Rs. 1,50,000. Heard, learned counsel for parties. Counsel for assessee-appellant submitted that when no defect was found either by CIT(A) or by Tribunal in books of account, then result should be accepted and addition is unwarranted. On other hand, Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, learned counsel appearing for Department has supported order of Tribunal. After hearing learned counsel for parties, we have gone through orders passed by AO, CIT(A) as well as Tribunal. In para 2 of assessment order, AO in clear terms has stated that assessee was asked to produce stock register as well as sale and purchase vouchers for verification of closing stock and other items as directed by CIT(A), but directions of AO were not complied with. Thus, keeping all facts in view, AO has estimated total sales including rebate of assessee at Rs. 4,00,00,000 and in view of inadequacy of accounts, net profit rate of 3 per cent was considered to be reasonable and thus, AO assessed net income of assessee to Rs. 12,00,000 that has been reduced to Rs. 1,20,000 by CIT(A) and same has been accepted by assessee as no appeal was filed by assessee and in appeal filed by Department, Tribunal has enhanced net income from Rs. 1,20,000 to Rs. 1,50,000. In facts and circumstances of case, when relevant documents w h ic h were required by AO to verify closing stock required documents were not produced, we are of opinion that AO has committed no error in rejecting book result of respondent-assessee. AO while dealing with matter has proceeded in accordance with provisions of IT Act and assessed net income of assessee as aforesaid. However, CIT(A) taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of case, has reduced addition. Tribunal has finally sustained addition of Rs. 1,50,000. Thus, considering nature of business and appreciation of facts as well as fact that assessee has not challenged addition of Rs. 1,20,000 sustained by CIT(A) on same ground, we see no substance in appeal while on same ground Tribunal found that addition of Rs. 1,50,000 is just and reasonable. appeal fails and is, hereby dismissed. *** RAJASTHAN WINE AGENCY v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.