ALI MUHAMMAD VS SADAQAT BEGUM, 1996 PTD-INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN 1091 (1995)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----S.134---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Issues raised before Appellate Tribunal and before the first appellate forum had not been raised before the Assessing Authority at the time of assessment proceedings---Such issues, held, could not be raised before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(b) Income-tax---

----Estimate of sale---No infirmity having been found in the order, passed by the department estimating the income of assessee, Appellate Tribunal declined interference.

Muhammad Ameer Sadiq for Appellant,

Nemo for Respondent

Date of hearing: 21st November 1995

ORDER

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---This second appeal has been filed by the assessee in which the order, dated 9-9-1991 rendered by the then I.A.C. of Income Tax Range-II, Multan has been assailed. Originally I.T.O. Circle-2, Multan had recorded the assessment order in this case on 8-1-1991. The assessment pertains to the year 1988-89. The assessee derives income from the sale of TOYO NASIC PRODUCTS.

2. Sales were declared by the assessee at Rs.14,00,000 with G. P. rate at 8 % . Due to the defects pointed out in the assessment order, non-availability of books of account and the unreliable conduct of the assessee in earlier years for changing the originally declared results, the results shown by the assessee for the year under review have been rightly rejected by the I.T.O. and confirmed by the first appellate authority. Sales were accordingly estimated by the assessing officer at Rs.17,50,000 and G.P. rate was applied at 10%.

3. Dissatisfied with the order of the I.T.O. the assessee had filed first appeal where as indicated above, the disclosed version of the assessee has also been found unacceptable. However, sales have been reduced from Rs.17,50,000 to Rs.16,50,000. The first appellate authority has, however, confirmed the applied G. P. rate at 10 % .

4. According to the grounds of appeal the assessee has alleged that the estimate of sales at Rs.16,50,000 was still on the higher side and the confirmation of G.P. rate at 10% was also unjustified. It is also the case of the assessee that the addition of Rs.14,000 out of P&L account expenses under the salary was also unjustified.

5. None has appeared before us today on behalf of the department/respondent, as such we are deciding this appeal ex parte as allowed under Income Tax Appellate Tribunals Rules, 1981.

6. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Ameer Sadiq, who is representing the assessee/appellant and have also gone through the orders, which have been passed in this case by the departmental authorities.

7. In the first instance we may pointed out that it appears from the order of A.A.C. that the issues which have now been raised before us or for that matter Ore the first appellate authority were never contested by the assessee at the assessment forum. In this view of the matter it is doubtful if the objections which are now being raised by the assessee can be agitated at this stage.

8. Besides the above we do not find any legal infirmity in the orders passed by the lower authorities regarding the estimate of sales. In any case it has been found by the A.A. C. that the estimate of sales at Rs.17,50,000 was on the higher side and as such the first appellate authority has reduced the same to Rs.16, 50,000. It has been submitted by the representative of the assessee that the sales were still excessive. We are, therefore, inclined to show some leniency to the assesses and determine the sales at Rs.16,00,000, which would sufficiently meet the ends of justice as against the declared sales of Rs.14,00,000.

9. So far as the G.P. rate is concerned the representative of the assessee has not been able to show us any case in which a lower rate of G.P. than the one which was applied in the case in hand at 10% has been determined. We, therefore, find that no interference is called for in the order of the A.A.C. in this respect and the rate of G.P. at 10% is, therefore, confirmed.

10. The addition of Rs.14,000 as indicated above, has been made in P&L account expenses as the assessee had failed to produce any supporting evidence and details to establish hide claim on account of salary. We, therefore, find that no mistake has been committed by the authorities below in giving the said treatment to the assessee.

11 No other point has been agitated before us on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing of this appeal

12. On account what has been said above the appeal filed by the assessee succeeds to the extent and in the manner as indicated above.

M .13.A./192/Trib

Order accordingly