9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal was justified in applying a GP rate of 6% in the case of the assessee when as against the direction of the Government dated August 17, 1973, to charge a GP rate of 2%, the assessee had shown Tate of 3.4% ? " Questions arising out of the order in ITA (No.) 269(Ind)/80 : " (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no appeal lies against the order passed under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the ITO 'was not duty bound to afford opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the application for registration ? " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee declared sales of Rs. 7,83,324 with a gross profit of Rs. 24,111 giving rate of 3.4% for the assessment year under appeal, i.e., 1974-75. The ITO observed that in the preceding year, he applied a rate of 7.5%, which was reduced by the AAC to 6% and, therefore, even if 6% was applied, the profit would come to Rs. 22,887. He, however, estimated the extra profit at Rs. 25,000 and completed the assessment accordingly. On appeal before the AAC, it was contended that the business was mostly on wholesale basis with a nominal margin. It was also pointed out that in the case of Shri Kishanlal Kamalkumar the book results had been accepted. The AAC observed that the position of the assessee's accounts was the same as in the preceding year a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther appeal, the Tribunal, vide order dated 25th August, 1977, in I.T.A. No. 382/Ind/76-77, held that the trading results were rightly rejected as the purchases and sales were not properly vouched. The Tribunal also approved the GP rate of 6% applied by the AAC. The position of accounts is admittedly the same in the year under appeal. Therefore, following the earlier order of the Tribunal, I hold that the trading results were rightly rejected by the ITO for the year under appeal. However, the addition made by the ITO at Rs. 25,000 is excessive. The ITO has himself stated that if the gross profit is charged at 6%, the addition would come to Rs. 22,887. In these circumstances, I direct the ITO to apply a GP rate of 6% to the declared sales an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e instance of the assessee the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid questions of law for the opinion of this court. Re. Question No. 1 : The learned counsel for the Department conceded before us that this question is covered by two decisions of this court in Durgaprasad Rajaram Adatya v. CIT [1982] 134 ITR 601 and CIT v. Devilal Shankardayal [1983] 140 ITR 413, in which it has been held that the order of the ITO dismissing the assessee's application for continuation of registration of the firm was appealable. In the latter case also, the ITO refused continuation Of registration on the ground that the assessee filed the declaration form beyond limitation and sufficient cause was not shown by him for condonation of the delay in filing the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
