9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etionary powers, then it would not involve any substantial issue of law as such. In other words, this Court in its appellate jurisdiction u/s 260-A ibid, would not again de novo hold yet another factual inquiry - Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stock was not subject to verification remained unexplained by the assessee even before the Tribunal. Thus on the basis of unexplained defects in the books of account, the AO was also justified in rejecting the books of account. We thus upheld the. application of the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act in the present case. So far as restriction of the application of reduced g.p. rate on Rs. 26 lacs (i.e. round figure of alleged bogus purchases worth Rs. 25,00,556/-) is concerned, we do not find substance in the argument of the ld. D/R especially when sales declared by the assessee have not been doubted and interfered. For ready reference the relevant finding of the Id. CIT(A) at page 5 in this regard is being reproduced hereunder :- "S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept immediate preceding year the GP rates were 13.70%, 17.22% and 17.45% and only because the GP; rate of the immediate preceding year is also taken into account then the weighted average comes to 17.27%. After considering the reasons for fall in GP rate and the fact that the alleged bogus purchases is less than 2% of the total turnover the AO is directed to apply the GP rate of 17.27% only on the sales corresponding to the bogus purchases. As the bogus purchases is 1.89% of the total purchases considering the corresponding sales at 2% of the turnover which comes around Rs. 26 lacs and therefore AO is directed to apply higher GP rate of 17.27% on sales of Rs. 26 lacs corresponding to the bogus purchases. As a result, trading addition is mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case and after evaluating the whole factual scenario of assessee's case came to a conclusion that higher rate of 17.27% appears to be proper. In so applying, the assessee got partial relief to the extent of Rs. 15,55,990/-. In a case of this nature, we find no case to interfere because it is neither unreasoned, nor perverse and nor de hors to any provision of law. It is a finding which is capable of being recorded on the facts of this case. 8. Perusal of the impugned finding would go to show that Tribunal did examine the issue in detail and then recorded a finding. Such finding when challenge does not constitute any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260A ibid in an appeal arising out of such order. 9. In ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
