2013 (7) TMI 896

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... here is no appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee either in person or through counsel. Hence, after hearing the Revenue and going through the records, the present order is passed in this tax case revision relating to the assessment year 1996-97. The Revenue has filed this tax case revision, as against the order of the Tribunal, raising the following substantial question of law : Wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erence to the stock of those goods as per stock register, revealed stock discrepancy to the tune of ₹ 88,465 at purchase value, indicating, first sales suppression. The assessing officer also found other defects, warranting computation of gross profit at 12 per cent. for the stock difference. Thus, the assessment officer estimated stock difference to the tune of ₹ 99,081 and also made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iation found and the varying gross profit. The assessee explained that the higher gross profit in second sales was due to the price increase effected by M/s. Greaves Engineering Ltd. Apart from that, the assessing officer has not pinpointed out any misclassification in the accounts of the assessee. Thus, on the ground that varying gross profit would not be sufficient for invoking the formula for e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X