9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.8.2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 64(ASR) 2010, relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The following substantial questions of law have been claimed in the appeal for determination of this Court: " (i) Whether the Tribunal has erred in law by failing to appreciate that when the 'Opening stock' and 'Closing stock' of the appellant concern for the year under consideration had been reflected as the 'Closing stock' and ' Opening stock' in the immediate preceding and succeeding year, respectively, which thereafter ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has erred in law and facts of the case in failing to appreciate that as variations in 'Trading results' are attributable to manifold factors, therefore, no adverse inferences as regards minor fluctuations of the same as in comparison to that of the preceding year were liable to be drawn in the hands of the appellant, specifically in the absence of any material which could go substantiate that the appellant had suppressed her 'Trading results'?" 3. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication as narrated in the appeal, are that the assessee is an individual and she is engaged in the business of export of sport goods. Return for the assessment year 2006-07 was filed by her on 23.10.2006 declaring her income at Rs. 46,16,718/-. The retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nses' as claimed/debited by the appellant in her 'books of accounts' by holding that the assumption of the assessing officer that the overall labour cost percentage of 3.88% was to be applied uniformly to different variety of products manufactured by the appellant during the year was devoid of any force and, thus, not sustainable in law. Consequently, the very basis, by resorting to which the assessing officer had adopted the G.P. rate at the rate of 14% as against 8.27% was vacated by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) ultimately, sustained an addition of 1.5% to the G.P. rate declared by the appellant and partly allowed assessee's appeal vide order dated 20.11.2009. 5. The Tribunal sustained the findings of the CIT(A) vide the order under appeal bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal. Moreover, the findings recorded by the authorities below that the labour expenses had been inflated and the gross profit suppressed, could not be controverted. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in accepting 1% addition to G.P. rate as declared by the assessee. The Tribunal on appreciation of material on record has taken a plausible view. 10. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the said finding so as to persuade this Court to take a different view which may warrant interference with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Question No.3 also, thus, does not arise for consideration of this Court. 11. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
