Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (4) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ofit rate is adopted, it cannot be said that there is perversity of approach. Whether the rate is low or high, it would depend upon the facts of each case. In the present case net profit rate of five per cent. has been applied. We do not think it appropriate that the same requires to be enhanced. We are also inclined to think that it is high. - - - - - Dated:- 14-4-2003 - Judge(s) : DIPAK MISRA., A. K. SHRIVASTAVA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA J.-In this appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "the Act"), the Revenue has assailed the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 269/JAB of 1998. Sans unnecessary details, the facts as have been set forth are tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... see. The Tribunal, however, did not think it appropriate to reduce the rate which was added by the first appellate authority. Accordingly, it dismissed both the appeals. This court while admitting the appeal framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee having not included the credit sales in the books of account and in the balance-sheet, the Tribunal was justified assuming that the assessee followed different method of accounting for unrecorded sales, without any factual basis, and as such whether the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from perversity being against the settled principles of accountancy?" It is submitted by Mr. Rohit Arya, learned counsel for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application under section 256(1). It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represented the price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realisation of excess over the cost incurred that only forms part of the profit included in the consideration of sales. Therefore, unless there is a finding to the effect that investment by way of incurring the cost in acquiring the goods which have been sold has been made by the assessee and that has also not been disclosed. In the absence of such finding of fact the quest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates