I.T.A. NO.3599/1,13 OF 1991-92 VS I.T.A. NO.3599/1,13 OF 1991-92
1997 P T D (Trib.) 2096
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Ashfaq Ahmad, Accountant Member and
Muhammad Zaman Khan, Judicial Member
I.T. No.3599/LB of 1991-92, decided on 06/12/1995.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S32 (3)---Method of accounting---Rejection of accounts---Non-acceptance of declared sales---Declared version of assessee was rejected as he did not murrain proper record open to verification ---Assessee had admitted, vide order-sheet entry, un-verifiability of sales and purchases, and Assessing Officer on that basis estimated sales as against declared version---Assessee's declared sales had been accepted in the past---As to order-sheet entry, assessee denied any such admission about un-verifiability---On scrutiny, it was found that assessee's contention was correct--Assessing Officer was directed to accept assessee's declared version in circumstances.
Naveed Andarabi for Appellant.
Sartaj Yousuf, D.R. for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 6th December, 1995.
ORDER
ASHFAQ AHMAD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).---The appellant through this appeal has assailed the order passed by the CIT(A). Zone-V Lahore, in respect of the assessment year 1990-91. The appellant is' aggrieved on account of non-acceptance of the declared sales.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Private Limited Company, derives income from manufacturing fabrication and supply of electrical goods. As per the order of the ITO, examination of books of accounts indicated that the assessee did not maintain stock register, day to day manufacturing record and purchases & sales were not open to verification. In this connection, the ITO stated that the assessee's A.R. vide order-sheet entry dated 30-3-1991 had admitted the un verifiability of sales and purchases. On the basis of this, he estimated the sales at Rs.60,00,000 as against declared by the assessee at Rs.52,01,325.
3. The assessee being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who for the same reasons as recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order rejected the appeal of the assessee.
4. During the course of the hearing, the learned A.R. of the appellant agitated that Assessing Officer was totally unjustified in not accepting the declared version. In this context he stated that not a single instance of unverifiable sales was cited by the Assessing Officer. It was further stated by him that in the past and in the subsequent assessment years the declared sales have been accepted by the department. With regard to the order-sheet entry dated 30-3-1991 it was stated that no where did the A.R. of the assessee admitted un verifiability of sales or the purchases. On 30-3-1991 the case was adjourned to 31-3-1991 and it is for this reason that the A.R., had appended his signatures on the order-sheet entry.
5. After hearing the learned A.R. of the assessee, we directed the learned D.R. to produce the record and on scrutiny it was found that the contention of the learned A.R. of the assessee was correct. The learned A.R. had not admitted that the sales and purchases are unverifiable. He had merely appended his signatures against the order-sheet where the case had been adjourned. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer is directed to accept the declared sales of the appellant in this year.
The appeal succeeds accordingly.
C.M.S./181/Trib Appeal accepted.