1983 (10) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he ITO found that the assessee did not maintain quantitative details and details of closing stock were also not available. In the absence of these details, the ITO invoked the proviso to s. 145 (1) of the Act and made a lump sum addition of Rs. 10,000 to the declared trading result. 3. The assessee went in appeal and before the CIT (A) it was submitted that without pointing out any specific defect in the books of account the ITO should not have rejected the books result particularly as the rate of profit shown during the year was higher than in the earlier years. The CIT (A) did not accept the assessee s contention. He held that in the absence of proper stock taking at the end of the year the gross profit could be manipulated. Accordingly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he comparative chart as reproduced earlier, it is apparent that during the year under consideration, the assessee disclosed a better GP rate of enhanced sales as compared to the earlier years. Further the defects as pointed out authorities below, are the same during the year as were existing in the earlier years, but in spite of this the GP rates were accepted and GP rate of even 6.5% was accepted during the asst. yr. 1975-76. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the adhoc addition of Rs. 10,000 made to the trading results declared by the assessee is totally unjustified and accordingly. we delete the same. 6. The next ground of the assessee is against the disallowances made as mentioned below: (a) Rs. 220 as cost of stamps .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of 1/4th of total claim. 7. The last ground of the assessee is against charging of interest u/s 217(1A) of the Act. The ld. counsel submitted that without recording any finding with regard to the charging of interest u/s 217(1A) of the Act in the assessment order the ITO was not justified in levying such interest. In this connection he referred to the decision of Calcutta High court in (1983) 139 ITR 498 (Cal) (Monohar Gidwany ors vs. CIT) and also the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench B New Delhi, in ITO B-ward Gwalior vs. M/s R.S. sons, Lashkar (ITA No. 3139/Del 81 decided on 23rd Dec 82) since reported in (1983) BCAJ 171(Del). It was submitted that the levy of interest u/s 217 (1A) was bad in law and should be deleted. The ld. r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X