9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95,048 the assessee has disclosed gross profit of Rs. 67,258. The ITO, however, made a lump sum addition of Rs. 10,000 with the remarks that the assessee has not maintained complete quantity tally of diamonds. The assessee cannot prove as how he has arrived on value of closing stock. 4. In appeal, the assessee strongly argued that there is no justification in making an estimated addition of Rs. 10,000 to the trading results. In this connection, the assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1979-80 wherein he had deleted addition of Rs. 5,000 made by the ITO on similar reasons. It was, therefore, urged that Rs. 10,000 should be deleted from its total income. The CIT(A), however, upheld the action of the ITO in the follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 20 lakhs would amount to Rs. 10,000 and the lump sum addition of 10,000 made by the ITO is, therefore, reasonable. The ground of appeal is, therefore, rejected". 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,000 made by the ITO on a ground different than considered by the ITO. In this connection, he further submitted that even though full details of the majuri payments were filed before the CIT(A), as was done in respect of the asst. yr. 1979-80 wherein he did not find any defects the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,000 by commen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining the addition of Rs. 10,000. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties as well as the material placed before us and we find considerable force in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. It appears from the orders of the IT authorities that the lump sum addition is made just for the sake of making certain addition to the trading results. The CIT(A) has not mentioned specific items of majuri payments, which according to him are not verifiable from the accounts of the assessee. However, he sustained the addition on the basis of a small fall in the rate of G.P. on majuri receipts, which according to us, was not a correct approach adopted by the CIT(A). It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has maintained it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
