The assessee applied for a statement of the case to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, under section, 66 1 of the Indian Income tax Act.
He came to the companyclusion that if the sales made on companymission basis are excluded on the balance sales the average profit margin would go up to about 5 1/2 per cent.
The assessee applied to the High Court, under section 66 2 of the Indian Income tax Act, but the High Court, by its order dated October 3, 1961, dismissed the petition.
This companyrt, however, granted special leave to appeal and the appeal is number before us for disposal.
75,000.
He further remarked that the purchases were vouched, the sales were vouched and the parties involved in these transactions were identifiable.
The appellant filed a return showing an income of Rs.
70,510.
The Income tax Officer, appealed against the above decision to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, which restored the addition made by the Income tax Officer, less the above sum of Rs.
It was pointed out to the Appellate Tribunal that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had lost sigh of the fact that even in the preceding year goods from the National Carbon Company Ltd. did figure in the trading account of the respondent, and that if these goods are eliminated from the accounts, the margin of profit in the preceding year was 11.3 per cent.
of the year of account, as worked out by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Another factor which he took into companysideration was the ridiculously small withdrawals for personal expenditure in the partners accounts.
78,350 for the assessment year 1954 55.
as against 5.8 per cent.
The Income tax Officer in this assessment order dated February 26, 1958, did number accept the trading accounts and added Rs.
He further stated that the Income tax Officer had number been able to cite any case whether the profit margin disclosed was higher than that raveled by the books of the assessee.
which cannot be said to be unreasonable or inordinately low.
Shri R. S. Sanghvi had only withdrawn Rs.
The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who by his order dated October 16, 1958, accepted the appeal and deleted the addition of Rs.
He came to the companyclusion that the profits disclosed in companyparison with the earlier year were to low and there were numberday to day stock details for the purpose of verification.
He accepted the companytention urged on behalf of the assessee that in view of the fact that the assessee had to deal in hundreds items of goods of various sizes and varieties, it would mean a very heavy task to keep a stock account.
He companyld find out numberdefect in the accounts as such or any suppression of sales.
The Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated December 19, 1960, rejected the application on the ground that their companyclusions in the order were essentially findings of fact and based on adequate and proper material on record and did number give rise to any question of law.
4,490.
6,900 and shri C. T. shah had only withdrawn Rs.
75,000 but as the closing stock of Eveready torches was under valued to the tune of Rs.
Sikri, J. This is an appeal by special leave granted by this companyrt on November 5, 1962, and arises in the following circumstance.
6,300.
4,490, he only allowed a reduction of Rs.
