9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench, Chennai in ITSSA.No.27(Mds)/ 1999 dated 07.12.2005 for the block assessment years from 1987-88 to 1997-98. 3. This appeal was admitted on 14.7.2008 on the following substantial question of law : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified and correct in law in confirming the estimate of the profit at 7.17% even though there was no evidence or material or record proving the transaction with Shri Perumal " 4. The assessee is a firm engaged in the sale of jewelery, which is a partnership concern consisting of two partners. The husbands of those two partners are the power of attorney holders, who manage the business. 5. A search was conducted in the business premises of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT (A)]. The Appellate Authority, while affirming the view taken by the Assessing Officer with regard to the prudence of the business activity done by the assessee, estimated the gross profit at 4.5% on the sales as against 7% as estimated by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the order of assessment stood modified to that extent. 8. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, the Tribunal) against the order passed by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal reversed the order passed by the CIT (A) and restored the order passed by the Assessing Officer at 7.17%. 9. Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee appellant has strenuously contended that the assessment was made based on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 1.69 Crores to be his investment in the purchase of gold jewelery from the assessee's firm. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly valid. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the materials placed on record, we agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue that the question, which has been framed for consideration in this appeal, is not a substantial question of law, as the case revolves entirely on the factual matrix. The assessee questions only the estimation of profit at 7.17%. 12. We have perused the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 29.1.1999 and do agree with the conclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
