I.T.AS. NO.589/LB, 3045/LB AND 3044/LB OF 1991-92 VS I.T.AS. NO.589/LB, 3045/LB AND 3044/LB OF 1991-92
1997 P T D (Trib.) 1984
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Ahsan Alam, Accountant Member and M. Saleem Shad Qureshi, Judicial Member
I.T.As. Nos.589/LB, 3045/LB and 3044/LB of 1991-92, decided on 24/04/1996.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S.22---Income from business---Add backs---G. P. rates---Both department and- assessee were in cross appeals---Department against justification in reducing add -backs ---Assessee against enhancement of G.P. rate---C. I. T. (A) orders were assailed---Held, going through orders of Authorities below, Tribunal was of opinion that orders were quite reasonable and comprehensive in given circumstances---Appeals dismissed.
Masood Ali Jamshed, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No.589/LB of 1991-92)
Asif Bhatti, A.R for Respondent (in I.T.A No. 589/LB of 1991-92).
Asif Bhatti, A.R for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos.3045/LB and 3044/LB of 1991-92).
Masood Ali Jamshed, D.R for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos.3045/LB and 3044/LB of 1991-92).
Date of hearing: 4th April, 1996.
ORDER
M. SALEEM SHAD QURESHI (JUDICIAL MEMBER). ---First two cross-appeals one by the department and the other by the assessee have been filed pertaining to assessment year 1989-90. Whereas the 3rd appeal retaining to assessment year 1990-91 has been filed by the assessee/appellant only. Since all the three appeals involved similar type of facts and issues, we, therefore, propose to dispose of all these appeals under consideration through one combined order.
2. Department as well as the assessee-appellant has come into appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A), Lahore vide his A.O. Nos. 204 and 239, dated 13-10-1991 pertaining to assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91.
3. We have heard both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below and also considered all the grounds of the appeals pertaining to assessment years under consideration. In the assessment year 1989-90, departmental objection is that the learned CIT (A) was not justified in reducing the add-backs made under the heads conveyance from Rs.50,000 to Rs.25,000 and petrol from Rs.10,000 to Rs.4,000 and entertainment from Rs.3,000 to Rs.2,000 being unvouched and unverifiable. Whereas on the other hand the assessee-appellant has agitated that G.P. rate of 19% as against declared G.P. rate of 15% to be excessive. Whereas in the assessment year 1990-91 only the assessee-appellant has come forward to agitate the G.P. rate of 19% as against declared rate of 14.98% to be excessive.
4. Considering all the aspects of the case and going through the orders of the authority below, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned CIT(A) is quite reasonable and comprehensive in the given circumstances of the case. The learned CIT (A) has thoroughly considered the issues of application of G.P. rate and also the fixation of add-backs. The finding of the learned CIT (A) is quite reasonable and proper which calls for no interference on our behalf. We, therefore, do not feel inclined to comment on the well-founded verdict of the learned CIT (A). Both the cross-appeals one by the department and the other by the assessee-appellant pertaining to assessment year 1989-90 and the 3rd appeal filed by the assessee-appellant pertaining to assessment year 1990-91 are hereby dismissed accordingly.
C.M.S./312/Trib.Appeals dismissed.