2011 (10) TMI 470

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in consequence upheld the order of Commissioner of Appeals. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260-A ibid? 4. Facts of the case are these: 5. The assessee is engaged in the export business of Gold/Silver. The question arose as to what should be the rate of Gross Profit (G.P.) that should be applied for the yearly turnover of the sale made by assessee during the year under consideration (2005-06) because of invocation of powers under Section 145(3) of the Act against the assessee which resulted in rejection of their books of account. The CIT (Appeals) after examining the whole case on facts came to a conclusion t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 5 in this regard is being reproduced hereunder :- "So far as addition is concerned the GO rate of 16.06% declared in the year under consideration is certainly less than GP rate of 21% in the immediate preceding year as well as less than 17.45% and 17.22% in A.Y. 2003- 04 and A.Y. 2002-03. Once books of account are rejected the only option left with the AO is to estimate GP rate. The AO has taken weighted average of 5 years. However, the contention of the A/R is considered that fall in GP rate was explained to the AO vide their letter dated 18.12.2007 which is at page no. 64 of the paper book. It was explained that sales; have increased substantially from Rs. 7.79 crore to Rs. 13.07 crore and thus there is a growth of 68% in sales. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the bogus purchases. As a result, trading addition is made by applying the difference of GP rates which comes 1.21% on sales of Rs. 26 lacs. The trading addition is thus reduced to Rs. 31,460/- as against Rs. 15,87,450/-. As a result, the appellant gets relief of Rs. 15,55,990/-. The ground of appeal are partly decided in favour of the appellant. The first appellate order on the issue as discussed above is comprehensive and reasoned one hence we are not inclined to interfere therewith. The same is upheld. The ground and objection are rejected." 6. In the first place, what is involved in the case is a pure question of fact and not any question of law much less substantial question of law. Secondly, this Court cannot again in this appea....