JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. Ravindra Bhat J.-The Revenue is aggrieved by order dated October 18, 2013, of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the ITAT") in ITA No. 3862/Del./2000. It urges three issues and states that they involve substantial questions of law, first, on deletion of addition relatable to unrecorded purchases (Rs. 83,25,768); rejection of sum of Rs. 16,85,743, which had been added originally by Assessing Officer (AO) on account of gross profit rate adopted by him) and on deletion of addition of Rs. 87,429, claimed by assessee as expenses towards embroidery charges. Briefly, facts are that assessee-for assessment year 1996-97-filed return declaring its total income as Rs. 1,19,370. assessment was selected for scrutiny. Assessing Officer rejected assessee's books of account by invoking section 145(2) and brought to tax sum of Rs. 1,13,24,060. In doing so, amounts, inter alia, of Rs. 83,25,768 due to unaccounted purchases, Rs. 20,93,098 due to unrecorded sales and Rs. 87,429 due to embroidery charges were added. similar exercise had been conducted for assessment year 1994-95 and Assessing Officer appears to have adopted route of referring assessee's accounts to special auditor under section 142(2A). That exercise ran into technical problems on account of fact that extension of time for completing special audit was not agreed to be extended by assessee; but was done at instance of special auditor. special auditor failed to understand that embroidered finished goods cannot, in any case, be traced out from opening stock inventory and purchases made. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, therefore, rejected Assessing Officer's determination based on sub-audit. Assessing Officer's order in present instance was carried in appeal to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who granted substantial relief in respect of matters which are subject matter of present appeal. However, relief was denied to extent of Rs. 4,07,355 on second question, i.e., on recorded sales but substantial relief was granted for balance amount. assessee and Revenue appealed to Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. By impugned order, Revenue's appeal was rejected and assessee was granted relief that it sought. It is urged by Revenue that assessee had miserably failed to produce material to substantiate its claim with respect to opening and closing stock and had only partially satisfied Assessing Officer on discount. learned counsel stressed that in course of assessment proceedings, stand of assessee was equivocal, in sense that at one stage, claim was made that relevant books or inventories existed but later, it was urged that books had been destroyed. Given nature and volume of transactions, submitted counsel for Revenue, Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting books of account and taking total volume of transactions on one hand and applying gross profit rate of 25.14 per cent. in circumstance of case. Counsel for assessee contended that appreciation of facts by lower authorities is neither perverse nor unreasonable as to call for interference by this court under section 260A of Income-tax Act. He pointed out relevant portions of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order and stated that said authority not only followed previous assessment year 1994-95 but also adduced independent and additional reasons for present year. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal too considered all these grounds and rejected Revenue's contention. As far as first question is concerned, i.e., deletion of sum of Rs. 83,25,768, we notice that Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dealt with this issue in paragraph 13 of impugned order; it referred to detailed findings of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in paragraph 13.5. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's findings are as follows: "17.3. Assessing Officer's suspicion starts qua trading results of assessee, as mentioned above, on presumptive basis that assessee's sales were nearly opening stock. Inventory of closing stock filed by assessee was verified by Assessing Officer on test check basis. Assessing Officer then required assessee to precisely identify item mentioned in closing stock and tally it with purchase vouchers with exactly same description. assessee in detail explained that it deals in selling furnished lehangas, sarees and other ladies apparels which are finished with zari, embroidery, bead work, etc. raw cloths like sarees, lehengas are dyed in different colours as per requirement and then finished by lengthy process. Therefore, exact description of closing stock items with matching cannot be shown from purchase vouchers. purchase vouchers contain description as plain sarees, dupattas or other textile and finishing material, which will be converted into finished product by way of dying, embroidery work by artisans, stones, zari, etc. In our considered view explanation of assessee was based on practical facts of its business and exact description of closing stock finished items could not be demonstrated by way of exact description in purchase vouchers. This is simply so because assessee does not purchase finished items. This factual situation has been conversely assumed by Assessing Officer to draw adverse inference that unrecorded purchases are made by assessee and unrecorded sales were also indulged in by assessee. test check ratio is extrapolated and applied to entire purchases and sales of year, resulting in these additions. 17.4. In our considered view, exercise undertaken by Assessing Officer has been rightly held by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to be unjustified and based only on assumptions and presumptions. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has referred to his order for assessment year 1994-95, though assessment for assessment year 1994-95 has been technically quashed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal order, however observations of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) therein are on merits and tally with our views which are taken independently." Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal-as is evident from above extract-took note of reasoning and materials. Both authorities were guided by peculiar nature of transactions involved where assessee purchased raw and semi-finished products and, thereafter, sent them for embroidery and other work before finished products were made available to it for sale. No fresh ground has been made out in present appeal to show why Incometax Appellate Tribunal's made out in present appeal to show why Incometax Appellate Tribunal's reasoning is unsustainable in law. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed view of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after elaborate discussion, based on its own appreciation as is evident from above extracts. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that no substantial question of law arises on first question urged. With respect to second issue, i.e., sum of Rs. 20,93,098 towards own recorded sales, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had this to say: "17.6. Apropos assessee's appeal-in our considered view-the assessee's books, as far as sales are concerned, do not call for any rejection of books. No iota of evidence has been brought on record to suggest any undisclosed sales and in absence thereof merely because books of account are rejected without justification, sales cannot be estimated. In our considered view, rejection of books of account of assessee is only on basis of surmises and assumed discrepancies in closing stock which has been reasonably explained by assessee. No evidence whatsoever indicating nonrecording of any purchase or sale in books of account is brought on record to substantiate Assessing Officer's theory. 17.7. It is trite law that undisclosed purchase and sale cannot be attributed to assessee without reliance on proper corroborative evidence. gross profit disclosed by assessee having been accepted; no specific instances of deficiency of sale or purchase in account books; no proof of unrecorded purchases or sales having been brought on record, we see no justification for rejection of books of assessee. In view thereof, in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we uphold book results and gross profit disclosed by assessee being satisfactory no addition is called for. rejection of books by lower authorities is only on surmises and not supported by any cogent or objective reasons. Consequently, we delete additions in respect of rejection of books, estimation of sales/purchases and consequent estimation of gross profit in result assessee's ground in this respect succeeds. Revenue's grounds in this respect fail." Like in case of first issue sought to be raised, no question of law arises. What Revenue urges is detailed re-appreciation of facts-which is impermissible under section 260A. same reasoning would apply in respect of third question involving deletion of Rs. 87,420. In light of above reasoning no substantial question of law arises. appeal is dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Zohra Emporium