I.T.A. NO.3069/LB OF 1991-92 VS I.T.A. NO.3069/LB OF 1991-92
1997 P T D (Trib.) 2124
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Nasim Sikandar, Judicial Member and
Shariq Mehmood, Accountant Member
I.T.A. No.3069/LB of 1991-92, decided on 04/01/1996.
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S. 22---Income from business---Estimate of sale---G. P. rate ---Assessee returned sales by applying his own G.P. rate---Assessing Officer rejected same and assessed sale and G.P. rate at high altitude as assessee failed to establish even import sales according to documents---Appellate Additional Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed same and reduced G.P. rate---Held, assessee's complaint against rejection of declared version was not well barred---Assessee admittedly failed to substantiate his version---No exception could be taken to that aspect of assessment as well as First Appellate Authority's order---Tribunal found estimate of sales somewhat on higher side---Some reduction was allowed ---Disallowances appeared reasonable as assessee had not thrown serious challenge to observation.
A. Masood Kh. for Appellant.
Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent
Date of hearing: 6th November, 1995
ORDER
NASIM SIKANDAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---This further appeal by an individual assails an order ordered by A.A.C. Range-I, Multan on 23-11-1991.
2. The assessee in this case is an individual who deals in nylon ropes etc For the assessment year 1990-91 import sales were disclosed at Rs.28,45,000 and local sales at Rs.3,10,000. The rates in these accounts respectively were inducted at 7.36 % and 15 % .The assessee failed to establish even imports sales as according to the documents produced there amounted to Rs.27,85,550. The declared version was accordingly rejected and sales in import account estimated at Rs.29,00,000 and the local rates at Rs.4,00,000. After making adjustment in P&L account total income was assessed at Rs.1,71,050 as against returned at Rs.57,999. Learned first appellate authority A.A.C. Multan, Range confirmed the sales estimated in both of the accounts as well as and the rate applied at 10% in import account. This has grieved the assessee.
3. Parties have been heard. The complaint of the assessee against rejection of declared version in both of the accounts is not well-barred. The assessee admittedly failed to substantiate the import as well as the total unless as indicated above. Therefore, no exceptions can possibly be taken to this aspect of the assessment as well as first appellate order. Moreover, we find that the estimates made by the assessing officer are some what on the higher side. Accordingly it is directed that import sales shall be restricted to Rs.28,50,000 and local sales to Rs.3,25,000. The disclosed rate in case of local sales having been accepted, no interfere in this regard is required. The applied rate at 10% in import account appears reasonable in absence of any parallel case cited or relied upon by the assessee.
4. The disallowances in P&L account also appear reasonable as the assessee has not thrown a serious challenge to the observations made by the assessing officer. These shall accordingly stand confirmed.
5. The appeal succeeds only to the extent of reduction in estimation of sales as ruled above.
C.M.S./319/Trib. Order accordingly.