9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ched by the said authority and finding the same to be erroneous as it was a duty of the Tribunal to ascertain the reasons which were given by the Commissioner (Appeals) in whose order, the order of the Assessing Officer had merged before reversing the same ? 257 ITR 297 (Gujarat) ? ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of the CIT (A) without discussing the findings reached by the said authority after due justification ? iii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not adjudicating upon the said issue, which is jurisdictional in nature and go to the very root of the matter ? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of ₹ 2,53,44,285/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of estimation of gross profit to ₹ 9,57,432/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order of the CIT (Appeals), Revenue has filed an appeal being ITA No.179/Rjt/2009 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has estimated the gross profit at 2% against 2.46% estimated by the Assessing Officer and deleted by the CIT (Appeals). 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the present Tax Appeal is filed by the appellant raising the above referred substantial questions of law. 7. The main grievance raised by Mr. Soparkar is that the Tribunal has reversed the order of the CIT (Appeals) without discussing the findings reached by the First Appellate Authority and by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Rameshchandra M. Luthra V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 257 ITR 460 (Gujarat) wherein it is held that since the Tribunal had not appropriately considered the reasoning given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and had given its finding without dealing with the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals), its order could not be sustained. The matter was accordingly remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the Revenue's appeal and for taking afresh decision thereon in accordance with law. 10.Based on the above decisions, Mr. Soparkar has submitted that in the present case also, the Tribunal has reversed the order of the CIT (Appeals) without discussing the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and applied the gross profit rate of the assessee under Section 145 (3) and applied a gross profit rate of 2.46%. The Assessing Officer has cited two other comparable cases, where gross profit ratio was shown at 2.48% and 2.44%. This is against the assessee's disclosure of gross profit rate at 1.344%. 7. The CIT (A) has estimated the value of finished goods at 20% of ₹ 47,87,160/which comes to ₹ 9,57,432/. This according to him was the value required to be added in the value of raw material arrived at work in process. 8. We are of the view that the gross profit rate taken by the Assessing Officer is on the high side. We are also of the view that the profit rate arrived at by CIT (A) is on the low side. We confirm the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
