My client's books were rejected because the gross profit rate fell. Is a fall in gross profit by itself enough?
By itself, no — and that is exactly what the assessee argued here. But the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his appeal because the rejection did not rest on the fall in gross profit alone: the Assessing Officer had compared two years and found that the paddy milled was almost equal and sales had risen by 29 per cent while manufacturing expenses had risen by 45.93 per cent, which on the officer's finding showed that the assessee had either inflated the expenses or depressed the sales. The court held that the judgments the assessee relied on turned on their own facts, that no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal.
Decided by the High Court (Ajay Kumar Mittal J and Anita Chaudhry J) on 2014-01-28, reported as ITA No.250 of 2012 (O&M) (Punjab and Haryana High Court), Assessment Year 2007-08. It bears on section 145, section 145(3), section 144, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
This is the Revenue side of the line and it is the answer an officer will give to the argument built on Forum Sales. The rule is not that books can never be rejected; it is that the officer must find a specific defect. Where he does — and a cost movement wholly out of line with volume and sales is such a defect — the finding is one of fact concurrently arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, and s.260A gives the High Court no room. The lesson for the practitioner is that the reply to a s.145(3) show cause has to explain the movement, not merely assert that a falling gross profit rate is not a ground. Note also that the Commissioner (Appeals) here partly accepted the appeal by reducing the quantum of the additions while upholding the rejection — the two questions are separate and are worth arguing separately.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee derived income from two concerns engaged in milling paddy and selling the products. For AY 2007-08 he returned a gross profit of Rs.24,75,369, a rate of 7.39 per cent. The Assessing Officer compared AY 2006-07 with AY 2007-08 and found that the paddy milled was almost equal, sales had increased by 29 per cent, and manufacturing expenses had increased by 45.93 per cent; he also noted that part of the increase in sales was attributable to opening stock of Rs.92,94,527 on which no manufacturing expenses had been incurred, so that but for sales out of opening stock the increase in sales would have been lower still. On that footing he concluded that the assessee had either inflated the expenses or depressed the sales, rejected the books and made additions. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly accepted the appeal, reducing the quantum of the additions while upholding the rejection of the books, and the Tribunal, by order dated 19 March 2012 in ITA No.264/CHD/2011, affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee appealed under s.260A, contending that a decline in the gross profit rate cannot by itself be a ground for rejection of books and relying on M. Durai Raj v. CIT [(1972) 83 ITR 484 (Ker)], International Forest Co. v. CIT [(1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K)], CIT v. Bharat Rice Mills [(2001) 250 ITR 584 (P&H)], CIT v. R.K. Rice Mills [(2009) 319 ITR 173 (P&H)], Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills v. CIT [(1969) 73 ITR 192 (P&H)] and CIT v. Bindals Apparels [(2011) 332 ITR 410].
The appeal was dismissed. The court found no merit in it, held that the judgments relied on by the assessee were based on the individual fact situations involved in them and did not come to his rescue, and held that no substantial question of law arose (paras 8 and 9).
The primary issue was whether the assessing authority was justified in rejecting the books of account, a conclusion upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and affirmed by the Tribunal. The rejection rested not on the fall in the gross profit rate alone but on the comparison recorded by the Assessing Officer between the two years — almost equal paddy milled, a 29 per cent increase in sales and a 45.93 per cent increase in manufacturing expenses, with part of the increase in sales attributable to opening stock carrying no manufacturing cost — from which the officer concluded that the assessee had either inflated the expenses or depressed the sales. The findings of fact recorded by the authorities below were based on appreciation of the evidence on record. On the case law, the court held that those decisions turned on their own facts and that the courts there had declined to interfere in view of the findings of fact recorded, so they did not assist the appellant (para 8).
In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppBy itself, no — and that is exactly what the assessee argued here. But the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed his appeal because the rejection did not rest on the fall in gross profit alone: the Assessing Officer had compared two years and found that the paddy milled was almost equal and sales had risen by 29 per cent while manufacturing expenses had risen by 45.93 per cent, which on the officer's finding showed that the assessee had either inflated the expenses or depressed the sales. The court held that the judgments the assessee relied on turned on their own facts, that no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal. This was decided by the High Court (Ajay Kumar Mittal J and Anita Chaudhry J) and bears on section 145, section 145(3), section 144, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No.250 of 2012 (O&M) (Punjab and Haryana High Court), Assessment Year 2007-08. This is the Revenue side of the line and it is the answer an officer will give to the argument built on Forum Sales. The rule is not that books can never be rejected; it is that the officer must find a specific defect. Where he does — and a cost movement wholly out of line with volume and sales is such a defect — the finding is one of fact concurrently arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, and s.260A gives the High Court no room. The lesson for the practitioner is that the reply to a s.145(3) show cause has to explain the movement, not merely assert that a falling gross profit rate is not a ground. Note also that the Commissioner (Appeals) here partly accepted the appeal by reducing the quantum of the additions while upholding the rejection — the two questions are separate and are worth arguing separately. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Answer the specific comparison the officer has drawn — volume, sales and each head of expense — with figures, before falling back on the proposition that a fall in gross profit is not by itself a ground.
The assessee derived income from two concerns engaged in milling paddy and selling the products. For AY 2007-08 he returned a gross profit of Rs.24,75,369, a rate of 7.39 per cent. The Assessing Officer compared AY 2006-07 with AY 2007-08 and found that the paddy milled was almost equal, sales had increased by 29 per cent, and manufacturing expenses had increased by 45.93 per cent; he also noted that part of the increase in sales was attributable to opening stock of Rs.92,94,527 on which no manufacturing expenses had been incurred, so that but for sales out of opening stock the increase in sales would have been lower still. On that footing he concluded that the assessee had either inflated the expenses or depressed the sales, rejected the books and made additions. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly accepted the appeal, reducing the quantum of the additions while upholding the rejection of the books, and the Tribunal, by order dated 19 March 2012 in ITA No.264/CHD/2011, affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee appealed under s.260A, contending that a decline in the gross profit rate cannot by itself be a ground for rejection of books and relying on M. Durai Raj v. CIT [(1972) 83 ITR 484 (Ker)], International Forest Co. v. CIT [(1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K)], CIT v. Bharat Rice Mills [(2001) 250 ITR 584 (P&H)], CIT v. R.K. Rice Mills [(2009) 319 ITR 173 (P&H)], Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills v. CIT [(1969) 73 ITR 192 (P&H)] and CIT v. Bindals Apparels [(2011) 332 ITR 410]. The matter was decided on 2014-01-28 by the High Court (Ajay Kumar Mittal J and Anita Chaudhry J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed. The court found no merit in it, held that the judgments relied on by the assessee were based on the individual fact situations involved in them and did not come to his rescue, and held that no substantial question of law arose (paras 8 and 9).
The primary issue was whether the assessing authority was justified in rejecting the books of account, a conclusion upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and affirmed by the Tribunal. The rejection rested not on the fall in the gross profit rate alone but on the comparison recorded by the Assessing Officer between the two years — almost equal paddy milled, a 29 per cent increase in sales and a 45.93 per cent increase in manufacturing expenses, with part of the increase in sales attributable to opening stock carrying no manufacturing cost — from which the officer concluded that the assessee had either inflated the expenses or depressed the sales. The findings of fact recorded by the authorities below were based on appreciation of the evidence on record. On the case law, the court held that those decisions turned on their own facts and that the courts there had declined to interfere in view of the findings of fact recorded, so they did not assist the appellant (para 8). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed."
It was decided by the High Court on 2014-01-28 and is reported as ITA No.250 of 2012 (O&M) (Punjab and Haryana High Court), Assessment Year 2007-08. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 145, section 145(3), section 144, section 260A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal was dismissed. The court found no merit in it, held that the judgments relied on by the assessee were based on the individual fact situations involved in them and did not come to his rescue, and held that no substantial question of law arose (paras 8 and 9). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 145, section 145(3), section 144, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Ajay Kumar Mittal J and Anita Chaudhry J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Attack the quantum separately from the rejection; the Commissioner (Appeals) here upheld the rejection but reduced the additions, and that is often the realistic relief. Do not expect a High Court to reopen a concurrent finding of fact on the existence of defects; the appellate opportunity on that is at the Tribunal. Where the officer relies only on comparative gross profit rates with no defect in the records, cite this decision against the Revenue — it shows the court looking for something more than the rate. Read this with PCIT v Forum Sales Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court, 1 March 2024): rejection is a precondition to an estimate, and a defect is a precondition to rejection.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Only one later decision has been found that genuinely engages with this judgment, and it distinguishes it. In DCIT (Central) v Anil R. Chordia (HUF) (ITAT Kolkata, 19 June 2019) the Departmental Representative relied on it at paragraph 6 'for the proposition that when the deficiencies and discrepancies are noticed in the records maintained by the assessee, the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the books of accounts', and the Bench held at paragraph 12 that 'The decision in the case of Pramod Kumar, Prop. Lajja Rice & Oils Mills (supra) does not hold the case of the revenue, as it was a case where certain defects and deficiencies was found in the maintenance of records. No such deficiencies are pointed out by the Assessing Officer in this case', and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. That distinction is in fact the judgment's own point, and it is useful to a practitioner on either side: the rejection of books under s.145(3) survived here because unexplained movement in costs was identified, not because the gross profit rate had fallen, and without identified defects the Revenue cannot borrow the case. No later decision has been found applying it as a ground of decision, and nothing overrules or doubts it. Two limits on relying on the entry. The judgment dismisses an appeal under s.260A for want of a substantial question of law, so it approves a finding of fact rather than laying down a rule, and its weight against a differently found set of facts is slight. And it is decided on assessment year 2007-08, before the Finance Act 2016 added the income computation and disclosure standards limb to s.145(3), so it is no authority at all on rejection for non-compliance with those standards. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment is short and runs to 9 numbered paragraphs, paragraph 9 being the disposal. A caution about the text: some circulating transcriptions compress the middle paragraphs into summary prose, so the wording of paragraphs 3 to 7 should be checked against a full report before any of it is quoted; paragraphs 1, 3, 8 and 9 have been read verbatim for this entry. THE KEY ATTRIBUTION POINT. The passage setting out the comparison of paddy milled, sales and manufacturing expenses — including the sentence that the assessee had either inflated the expenses or depressed the sales — is the finding of the authorities below as reproduced in the judgment, and not the High Court's own words. It is treated as such here, and citing it as the High Court's holding would overstate the decision considerably: what the High Court held was that those were concurrent findings of fact on an appreciation of the evidence and that no substantial question of law arose under s.260A. The particulars are these. The assessment year is 2007-08 and the gross profit returned was Rs.24,75,369, a rate of 7.39 per cent. The appeal to the High Court was against the Tribunal's order of 19 March 2012 in ITA No.264/CHD/2011, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had partly accepted the appeal by reducing the quantum of the additions while upholding the rejection of the books. Those are two separate questions and the record shows them being decided separately; a practitioner should argue them separately too, because a rejection that survives does not carry the quantum with it. ONE DATING POINT. Because this is a pre-2017-18 year, the third limb of s.145(3) added by the Finance Act 2016 — non-compliance with the income computation and disclosure standards notified under s.145(2) — was not in the field, so the judgment says nothing about rejection on that ground. What the case is authority for, and it is narrow, is that a rejection under s.145(3) survives where the officer has identified a specific defect: here, almost equal paddy milled against a 29 per cent rise in sales and a 45.93 per cent rise in manufacturing expenses, with part of the sales coming out of opening stock of Rs.92,94,527 on which no manufacturing expense had been incurred. The six decisions the assessee relied on were held to turn on their own facts. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed. The court found no merit in it, held that the judgments relied on by the assessee were based on the individual fact situations involved in them and did not come to his rescue, and held that no substantial question of law arose (paras 8 and 9).
TaxSphere, “Pramod Kumar (Lajja Rice and Oils Mills) v CIT — a fall in gross profit is not the ground, but unexplained cost movement is”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/pramod-kumar-lajja-rice-mills-v-cit-when-rejection-of-books-is-justified/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The Assessing Officer has disallowed forty per cent of my client's purchases on an estimate, but has not rejected the books. Is that open to him?
The officer rejected my books and made a best-judgment assessment because I kept no stock register. Is that enough on its own to reject?
The Assessing Officer says my client's accounts must be redone under the ICDS. How far do the ICDS actually reach?
We are a foreign company on an approved turnkey power project. We keep books, they are audited, and we recognise revenue on percentage of completion under AS-7. The Assessing Officer has rejected the books under section 145(3) and taxed 10 per cent of our billings under section 44BBB(1). Can he do that?
