| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 48 1989 SLD 48 1989 PTD 332 (1988) 57 TAX 109 |
Patna High Court
Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 1978, decision dated: 20-03-1987
UDAY SINHA AND ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, JJ
B.A.Rajgarhia and S.K.Sharan for the Commissioner. K. N. Jain and M. Nath for the Assessee
Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 1978, decision dated: 20-03-1987
UDAY SINHA AND ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, JJ
B.A.Rajgarhia and S.K.Sharan for the Commissioner. K. N. Jain and M. Nath for the Assessee
COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax
VS
PARECK BROTHERS
Law:
Section:
Income-tax----Rejection of accounts--Assessee included in sale the amount realised as sales tax from customers and did not debit amount of sales tax in trading account--No stock register or detail of sales/purchases maintained by assessee--Amount of sale tax being deductable in computation of profit, rejection of account, held, was justified in circumstances. Sinclair Murray & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1974) 97 I T R 615; Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1973) 87 I T R 542; Sinclair Murry & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1974) 97 I T R 615(S C) and Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. C I T (1973) 871 T R 542 ref. JUDGMENT ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, J.--These three references are under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment years in question are 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75. This court, by its separate orders dated January 19, 1979, directed the Income Tax-Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench Patna, to state the case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Department's appeal without dealing with the points on merits, on the basis of the order passed in the assessee's appeal, when they were not being heard together? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the gross profit rate should be applied to gross turnover, including the amount of sales tax?" Under the directions of this Court, the Tribunal stated a consolidated case for the assessment years, in question. As the questions are common for the assessment years in question, the present three references have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. As it appears from the statement of case as also from the orders of the Income Tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, the assessee is a firm dealing m hosiery goods and readymade garments and derives income therefrom. The assessee has not maintained any day to day stock account. He has not furnished any distinctive number either of purchases or sales and hence the average margin ofโฆ
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492