I.T.As. Nos.1398/LB and 730/LB of 2004, decided on 20th August, 2004. VS I.T.As. Nos.1398/LB and 730/LB of 2004, decided on 20th August, 2004., 2006 PTD-INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN 2344 (2004)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----S. 62---Survey for Documentation of National Economy Ordinance (XV of 2000), Preamble---Assessment on production of accounts, evidence etc.---Estimate of sales---Assessee contended that in presence of report by the Survey Team, the Inspector could only deviate on some solid evidence---Neither the Inspector had prepared any stock tally nor his estimates were based upon some objective reasoning and calculation---Such estimates just bald estimates without any support---Held, that the Survey Team report should have been adopted without any exception in circumstances; since there was no reason for taking any exception, Appellate Tribunal directed that the sales declared in the survey form should be accepted as sales for the year.

Rashid Majeed Ch. ITP for Appellant (I.T.A. No. 1398/LB of 2004).

Abdul Sttar Abbasi, D.R. for Respondent (I.T.A. No. 1398/LB of 2004).

Abdul Sttar Abbasi, D.R. for Appellant (I.T.A. No. 730/LB of 2004).

Rashid Majeed Ch. I.T.P. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No.730/LB of 2004).

ORDER

KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED (CHAIRMAN).---This is a cross-appeal. The assessee is still dissatisfied with quantum of sales pitched by the CIT(A) while the department says that reduction to Rs.20,00,000 from Rs.22,00,000 is without any cogent reason.

I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record.

The assesses claims that the estimate of the Survey Team should be accepted as per its grounds, is valid. This Tribunal in a number of cases have held that the estimate of the Survey Team should be accepted generally except in the cases where the department have reasons to deviate. In the present case, the Inspector says that the shop is 120 Sq. ft. while the assessee claims that it is only 29 Sq. ft. The assessee says that his stock is at Rs. 100,000 while the Inspector had adopted the same at Rs.5,40,000. The declared sales of Rs.10,90,000 have been pitched at Rs.22,00,000. The assessee point of view remained that in the presence of report by the Survey Team, the Inspector could only deviate on solid evidence. Neither he has prepared any stock tally nor his estimates are based upon some objective reasoning and calculation. They are just bald and without any support. I, therefore, hold that in this case the Survey Team report should have been adopted without any exception. As per copy of the survey chart produced to me by the AR the amount agreed was Rs.14,00,000. Since there is no reason for taking any exception, I direct that the same should be accepted as sales for the year.

Order accordingly.

C.M.A./121/Tax (Trib.)Appeal accepted.