TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Rakesh Kumar Garg, J - The revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961( for short : the Act " ), against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' , Chandigarh, passed in ITA No. 146/Chandi/2005 dated 20.4.2007 for the assessment year 2001-02 raising the following substantial questions of law: "i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is right in restricting the addition to sales to the extent of Rs.1,44,000/- found unrecorded in the regular account books than determination of sale by the Assessing Officer at Rs.67,66,725/- particularly when the books of account were not authentic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtner, from M/s. Garg Bricks Co. The assessee filed return of income on 27.9.2001 showing total income of Rs.74331/-. The return of income was accompanied by audit report in form No. 3 CD comprising of balance sheet, trading account, P L account, coal account, capital account of the proprietor and other details. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of I. T. Act at the returned income. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that one Shri Gaurav Garg had shown purchases of 128000 number of bricks on credit basis for a sale consideration of Rs.144000/- from the assessee. The aforesaid information was put to verification. After that the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 20.4.2007 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and instead of 14% applied gross profit rate at 10%. The Tribunal also made an addition of Rs.1,44,000/- for the sales disclosed by the assessee. 5. We have heard Sh. Yogesh Putney , Advocate for the revenue and perused the record. 6. Counsel for the revenue has vehemently argued that the estimate of gross profit rate of 14% as applied by the Assessing Officer was quite reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Tribunal wrongly ordered the reduction at 10%. Learned counsel has also argued that in view of the details, as noticed and highlighted in the assessment order, the estimate of sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
