ORDER JAYANT PATEL, J. [1] The Revenue has preferred the present appeal on the two substantial questions of law as mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the memo of appeal. However, the learned counsel submits that the essential question is question [2][i], which would arise for consideration, the same reads as under: [2](i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee against the order of CIT(A) confirming disallowance of deduction u/S. 10B and 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? [2] We have heard Mr. V.K. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. [3] The relevant facts are that AO discarded the books of accounts of the assessee while considering the benefit of exemption under Section 10B and 80IB of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the production shown by the assessee is exceeding the sanction limit and the production data are inflated and consequently disallowed the claim of Rs.98,13,965/+ Rs.10,08,545/, total Rs.1,08,22,510/. In appeal, CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by AO. However, the Tribunal in the further Appeal observed at Paragraph 8, as under: Paragraph 8: “We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is undisputed fact that Assessee has claimed u/S.80IB and u/S.10B of the Act. It is also a fact that the deductions have been claimed by the Assessee in the past and has also been allowed in the scrutiny assessments. We find that AO has also not disputed that the Assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of goods and is also entitled to deduction u/Ss. 80IB and 10B of the Act. AO after rejecting the books of accounts has not estimated the book results but only has reworked the deduction u/S.80IB and 10B of the Act. It is also a fact that the books of accounts of the Assessee are audited under the Companies Act and the production of the Assessee has not been doubted by any other regulatory authority. We further find that AO has also not brought on record the findings of any other government or regulatory authority who was doubted the production of the Assessee. We further find that AO has also not brought on record the findings of any other government or regulatory authority who was doubted the production of the Assessee. We also find that though there has been fall in the G.P in the year under consideration and the Assessee's books of accounts have been rejected by the AO but no addition on account of fall in G.P has been made by the AO. We further find that even after the rejection of books of accounts, the total income before deduction has not been disturbed by AO. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to support the contention of the AO that Assessee has produced more than the installed capacity and the AO has proceeded on the basis of presumption. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that AO was not justified in working the revised claim of deduction u/S.10B and 80IB of the Act. We thus set aside the addition made by AO and allow the ground of Assessee.” Under the circumstances, the present appeal by the Revenue. [4] The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal found that the books of accounts of the assessee were audited books of accounts and the production data are not doubted by any of the regulatory authority. The Tribunal also recorded as under: “Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to support the contention of the AO that Assessee has produced more than the installed capacity and the AO has proceeded on the basis of presumption.” [5] As such whether to discard books of accounts and to reach a conclusion on the basis of past assessment would depend upon the facts of each case. In any case, before discarding of books of accounts, genuineness of the entry or entries in the books of accounts would be required to be tested. The Tribunal found that the production data are not found doubtful by any other regulatory authority. The Tribunal has relied upon the fact that the books of accounts which were duly audited. In any case, before discarding of books of accounts, genuineness of the entry or entries in the books of accounts would be required to be tested. The Tribunal found that the production data are not found doubtful by any other regulatory authority. The Tribunal has relied upon the fact that the books of accounts which were duly audited. In our view, if the Tribunal has recorded ultimate finding of fact that the discarding of books of accounts was not justified, and consequently the working out of the revise claim for deduction by AO, we find that such finding of fact would be outside the scope of judicial scrutiny, more particularly, when nothing is satisfactorily demonstrated before the Court that such finding of fact by the Tribunal can be said as perverse to the record. [6] Under the circumstances, we do not find any substantial questions of law as sought to be canvased. [7] Hence the present appeal is meritless hence the same is dismissed.