Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Commissioner Of Income Tax -I vs We Have Heard Learned Counsel Shri

High Court Of Gujarat|23 May, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) For the Assessment Year 2006-07, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [ Tribunal for short] dated 23rd May 2012 is challenged in this Tax Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 { Act for short}, raising following question of law for our consideration :-
{A} Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has justified by deletion made in respect to G.P, where Assessing Officer noticed various discrepancies viz. Incomplete details of opening stock and closing stock, absence of day to day quantity-wise details of raw material, diversion of income to the loss making sister concern, notices u/s 133(6), as discrepancies in books ? .
We have heard learned counsel Shri Sudhir Mehta for the Revenue and Shri R.K Patel for the assessee-respondent, on caveat.
The sole question concerns deletion made in respect of gross profit. It appears that for the assessment year in question, the Assessing Officer had estimated ratio of 14.14% of the gross profit and added a sum of Rs. 4,85,68,724/=. The Tribunal, on having quoted extensively the CIT [A] findings, noted that for the AY 2006-07, the gross profit had fallen by 3.37% as compared to the immediate preceding year and there was no possibility of quantity-wise details. On having been satisfied with the existence of parties and that the payments were made through cheques, it concurred with the findings of the CIT [A] on the ground that the non-maintenance of the quantitative record is no ground for rejecting the books of account, when the gross profit was 3.37% lower than the immediately preceding year, largely following its own logic of A.Y 2004-05.
Firstly, there is sufficient discussion of evidence by both the authorities on the subject; and secondly, entire issue is predominantly based on factual matrix presented to them. With no perversity having been noted in such findings, it gives no rise to any question of law.
Resultantly, present Tax Appeal is dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (Ms. SONIA GOKANI, J.) Prakash* Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Commissioner Of Income Tax -I vs We Have Heard Learned Counsel Shri

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
23 May, 2012