HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 424 / 2009 CIT ----Appellant Versus M/S Kiran Udyog ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 426 / 2009 CIT ----Appellant Versus M/S Kiran Udyog ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 436 / 2009 CIT ----Appellant Versus M/S Kiran Udyog ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 11 / 2014 C I T Jaipur-Ii Jaipur ----Appellant Versus M/S Kiran Infra Engineers ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. R. B. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta (2 of 4) [ ITA-424/2009] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 20/04/2017 1. All these appeals involve common questions of law and facts, hence are decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, appellant has challenged judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed appeal of Department and confirmed order of CIT (A). 3. This Court while admitting appeals framed following substantial questions of law. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 424 / 2009, 426/2009 and 436/2009 Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT was justified in law in confirming order of CIT(A) in deleting trading additions despite of facts rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) has been upheld? D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 11 / 2014 (i) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT was justified in law in confirming order of CIT(A) directing Assessing Officer to consider revised return which was defective and invalid as was not supported by Audit Report in Form 3CA and statement of accounts? (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of case ITAT was justified in law in confirming order of CIT(A) in deleting trading additions despite upholding application of section 145(3) of Act? 4. Tribunal while considering case has gone into specialised work which has been done by assessee and taking (3 of 4) [ ITA-424/2009] into consideration specialised work, Tribunal held as under: entire contract work done is highly specialized and is of technical nature which involves human safety at large and receives highest possible attention from contractees because works involved being nature of creation of signaling systems. Any error/failure of system may endanger life of thousands of human beings as failure may lead to dreaded accidents resulting into colossal loss of Railway properties. assessee firm undertakes creation of signaling system of including replacement of traditional signaling system of colour light signaling system. 5. Thereafter, considering rival contentions, Tribunal has dismissed ground of revenue observing as under: 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused facts of case. We find no infirmity in order of ld. CIT(A) since books of account cannot be said to be complete and correct. However, ld. CIT(A) has rightly made estimation and restricted addition to Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in order of ld. CIT(A). Thus Ground No.1 of Revenue is dismissed. Ground No. 2: ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing to reduce gross profit rate at 7% as against 8% applied by AO though rejection of books of account was confirmed. 13. We have heard rival contentions and perused facts of case. We concur with views of ld. CIT(A) who has rightly confirmed application of section 145(3) of Act. Our finding on estimation of income in assessee s own case for assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No. 1069/JP/08 of even date in para 7 hereinbefore are to be taken as findings in impugned year. Thus Ground No. 2 of Revenue is dismissed. ITA NO. 1070/JP/08 A.Y. 2005-06 Ground No.1: ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing to reduce adhoc addition to Rs.70,000/- as against Rs.2.00 lacs made by AO though rejection of books of account was confirmed. 19. We have heard rival contentions and perused facts of case. assessee is not (4 of 4) [ ITA-424/2009] maintaining sitewise expenditure as well as sitewise wage bills/vouchers. assessee is also not maintaining attendance or labour control register and consumption details. In such circumstances and facts of case, books of account of assessee cannot be relied upon and cannot be said to be correct and complete. Therefore, we find no infirmity in order of ld. CIT(A) who has rightly confirmed application of Section 145(3) of Act. As regards estimation of income, our finding on estimation of income in assessee s own case for assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No. 1069/JP/08 of even date in para 7 hereinbefore are to be taken as findings in impugned year. Thus Ground No.2 of Revenue is dismissed. 6. We are in complete agreement with view taken by Tribunal. Hence, issue is answered in favour of assessee and against Department. appeals are dismissed. copy of this judgment be placed in each file. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. /bm gandhi 5,6,7 and 9 CIT v. Kiran Udyog