Appeals partially allowed, interest revised, jurisdiction issue dropped, costs not pressed. Judgment pronounced 8-10-2010.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, rejecting trading addition and books of accounts rejection. The interest charged under sections 234B and 234C was directed to be revised. The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer issue was not pursued further, and the request for levy of costs was not pressed. The judgment was pronounced on 8-10-2010, with one case's order applied to the other due to identical facts and grounds.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include sustaining trading addition in declared results, rejecting regular books of accounts, applying Gross Profit Rate, charging interest u/s 234B and 234C, jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, and levy of costs.

Issue 1 - Trading Addition and Rejection of Books of Accounts:
The appeals involved sustaining trading addition and rejecting regular books of accounts. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account due to the non-maintenance of a day-to-day stock book, leading to the adoption of a gross profit ratio of 14.34% and an addition of Rs. 6,98,606 to the total income. The contention was that the transfer of stock between the assessee's proprietary concerns did not amount to a sale, affecting the gross profit ratio. The Tribunal held that the transfer did not constitute a sale and that deficiencies in maintaining books of account were not sufficient grounds for rejection. The addition made by the CIT (A) was deemed unjustified.

Issue 2 - Interest Charged u/s 234B and 234C:
The contention was that the interest charged under sections 234B and 234C was invalid and unjustified. The Tribunal deemed this issue consequential and directed the Assessing Officer to revise the interest amount in line with the order.

Issue 3 - Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer:
The appellant's contention regarding the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction was not accepted by the CIT (A). However, this issue was not pressed further by the appellant's counsel during the proceedings.

Issue 4 - Levy of Costs:
The appellant prayed for suitable costs, but this issue was not pressed by the appellant's counsel during the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed ITA NO. 93 / JU / 2010 and allowed ITA NO.94 / JU / 2010. The judgment was pronounced on 8-10-2010, with the order in one case being made applicable to the other due to identical facts and grounds.

---