JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of the present appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the appellant-assessee has challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the revenue vide order dated 28.6.2005 by reversing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the addition of Rs. 9,47,256/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of low gross profit. 2. While admitting the appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed: "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in the holding that the rejection of books of accounts was justified even when the respondent has not found any material error or mistake in the books of accounts maintained by the appellant?" 3. The facts of the case are that the return of income for assessment year 1994-95 was filed on 31.10.1994 declaring total income at Rs. 2,92,802/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 12,48,860/- by making certain additions. The Assessing Officer while making the assessment has rejected the books of account of the assessee and assessed gross profit at 8% which was 5.77% in the previous year. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, passed the order as aforesaid. Hence the assessee is before us. 4. Learned senior advocate Mr. S.N. Soparkar appearing for the assessee has taken us through the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), particularly, paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 which are extracted below: "(10) I have considered the submissions of the authorized representative and the arguments of the Assessing Officer. I am inclined to agree with the submissions of the authorized representative that without bringing any defects in the maintenance of books of account and without bringing any evidence on record of any sale of goods outside the books of account, the Assessing Office was not justified in estimating certain portion of samples as sales outside the books. I am inclined to agree with the submissions of the authorized representative that without bringing any defects in the maintenance of books of account and without bringing any evidence on record of any sale of goods outside the books of account, the Assessing Office was not justified in estimating certain portion of samples as sales outside the books. The assessing Office has not disputed that samples were distributed by the assessee to various dealers and commission agents. It is only disbelief that the Assessing Officer has presumed that certain portion of samples were sold outside the books. In the absence of any evidence of such sales, the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 5,16,683/- is deleted. (11) The next ground of appeal is with regard to the rejection of books of account and applying the provisions of section 145(2) for making the addition of Rs. 9,47,256/- by estimating the G.P. at the rate of 8%. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts by arguing that: (1) the assessee does not maintain quantitative register, (2) the assessee did not furnish a statement of date wise and quantity wise purchase and sale of certain design numbers, (3) in respect of sample No. 11796, the quantity of purchase, sales and closing stock do not match. (4) the G.P. for A.Y. 1995-96 was 13.08%. 5. He has further contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the case of the assessee has observed in paragraph No. 15 of the order as under: "I have considered the facts of the case, submissions made by the authorized representative and the reasons given by the Assessing Officer in his order. I am of the view that the Assessing Officer was no justified in rejecting the books of accounts without bringing any material on record to show that proper income cannot be deduced from the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. No addition on account of estimated of G.P. Is, therefore called for. The assessee succeeds on this ground." 6. The learned counsel for the assessee has contended that in absence of any defect in maintenance of books of account, books could not be rejected. No addition on account of estimated of G.P. Is, therefore called for. The assessee succeeds on this ground." 6. The learned counsel for the assessee has contended that in absence of any defect in maintenance of books of account, books could not be rejected. In support of this contention, he has relied on the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Symphony Comfort Systems Ltd., reported in (2013) 35 taxmann.com 533 (Gujarat) where at paragraph No. 3 this court has observed as under: "Issue No. 2 pertains to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of excessive expenses. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, however were of the opinion that such additions were not justified. The Tribunal while upholding the view of the Commissioner (Appeals), made following observations: "6. On consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue. The AO merely made comparative study of the expenses for the year under consideration with the preceding assessment year and found that expenses incurred in the preceding assessment year were 2.89% on turnover but in the assessment year under appeal it was 4.78% on the turnover. The expenses were, therefore, found excessive without pointing out as to which of the expenses incurred by the assessee was not connected with the business activity of the assessee. The AO has not pointed out which of the expenditure were not admissible in law. In the absence of any pointing out inadmissible expenses, the AO cannot make addition merely by comparing the expenditure with the preceding year's expenditure. The learned CIT(A) on proper appreciation of the facts and material on record rightly deleted the addition. This ground of appeal of the revenue is accordingly dismissed." The entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence. No question of law arises. When the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal concurrently held that on the basis of the evidence, addition as made by the Assessing Officer was not justified, we are not inclined to interfere." 7. He has further relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-XII v. Smt. Poonam Rani reported in (2010) 192 Taxman 167 (Delhi), particularly, paragraph Nos. He has further relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-XII v. Smt. Poonam Rani reported in (2010) 192 Taxman 167 (Delhi), particularly, paragraph Nos. 9 and 10, which are extracted below, to submit that in absence of any defect in the books of account, the same could not be rejected. "The fall in gross profit ratio could be for various reasons such as increase in the cost of raw material, decrease in the market price of finished product, increase in the cost of processing by the assessee etc. There is no finding that the actual cost of the raw material purchased by the assessee was less than what was declared in the account books. There is no finding that the actual cost of processing carried out by the assessee was less than what had been declared in her account books. No particular expenditure shown in the account books has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer that the actual quantity of finished product produced by the assessee was more than what it was shown in the account books. There is no finding that the assessee had made any such sale of the finished product which was not reflected in the account books. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer that the finished product was sold by the assessee at a price higher than what was declared in the account books. In these circumstances, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in our view, were justified in holding that the Assessing Officer could not have increased the gross profit ratio merely because it was low as compared to the gross profit ratio of the preceding year. 10. During the course of arguments before us, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessee was not maintaining the Daily Stock Register. We, however, find no such finding in the assessment order. On the other hand, we note that the assessee had submitted before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that Form 3 CD containing all the quantitative details in respect of raw materials as well as the finished goods duly audited by the Certified Accountant had been placed on record, but, the Assessing Officer ignored those actual figures enclosed with the return. On the other hand, we note that the assessee had submitted before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that Form 3 CD containing all the quantitative details in respect of raw materials as well as the finished goods duly audited by the Certified Accountant had been placed on record, but, the Assessing Officer ignored those actual figures enclosed with the return. In any case, no statutory provision under the Income Tax regime requiring the assessee to maintain the Daily Stock Register has been brought to our notice. Hence, even if no such register was being maintained by the assessee as is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that by itself does not lead to inference that it was not possible to deduce the true income of the assessee from the accounts maintained by her, nor the accounts can be said to be defective or incomplete for this reason alone. If stock register is not maintained by the assessee that may put the Assessing Officer on guard against the falsity of the return made by the assessee and persuade him to carefully scrutinize the account books of the assessee. But the absence of one register alone does not amount to such a material as would lead to the conclusion that the account books were incomplete or inaccurate. Similarly, if the rate of gross profit declared by the assessee in a particular period is lower as compared to gross profit declared by him in the preceding year, that may alert the Assessing Officer and serve as a warning to him, to look into the accounts more carefully and to look for some material which could lead to the conclusion that the accounts maintained by the assessee were not correct. But, a low rate of gross profit, in the absence of any material pointing towards falsehood of the account books, cannot by itself be a ground to reject the account books under section 145(3) of the Act." 8. In the light of the above decisions, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the books of account were rightly rejected. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is required to be interfered with. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-revenue Mr. In the light of the above decisions, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the books of account were rightly rejected. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is required to be interfered with. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-revenue Mr. Mehta has taken us to the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal and contended that the assessee has not maintained day today quantitative stock register. The assessee did not furnish date-wise and quantity wise details of purchase, sales and closing stock. He further contended that since the assessee was purchasing the clothes in meters and wholesale basis, the assessee ought to have maintained the stock register quantity wise which the assessee has failed to do. He has relied on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Harish Ahuja v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2015) 93 CCH 0239 PHHC and contended that the Tribunal has rightly held that the rejection of books of account was justified. In that view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal is not required to be disturbed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have gone through the orders of the authorities below. Taking into consideration the observation given by the Commissioner (Appeals), we are of the opinion that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly reversed the order of the Assessing Officer. The assessee maintained complete quantity details and that such details are reflected in the audit report. The assessee has maintained books of accounts and stock register. The Tribunal has reversed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on technical ground that the assessee was not having day-today closing stock and it failed to furnish quantity wise and quality wise details of purchase, sales and closing stock. In our view, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and was justified in observing that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the books of account of the assessee without bringing any material on record to show that proper income cannot be deduced from the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. In our view, the Tribunal has seriously committed error in reversing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. In our view, the Tribunal has seriously committed error in reversing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.