' NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---In this further appeal the appellant/ assessee assails the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recorded on 16-7-1999 on the departmental appeal restoring the assessm ent order earlier recorded on 30-6-1998 in respect of the assessee for the assessment years, 1995-96 and 1996-97.
2. For the two assessm ent years involved the assessee returne.1 net income at Rs,35,000 each. The Assessing Officer after receiving inquiry report frqm the Inspector proceeded to estimate sales at Rs,30 lac and Rs,35 lac for two years involved. The basis of estimate being 5 times of the reported capital at Rs,6 lac. The assessee was allowed expenses at Rs,100,000 and Rs,110,000 and the G.P. Of 15% to compute net income for two year at Rs,3,50,000 and Rs,4,15,000.
3. Learned First Appellate Authority A.A.C., Sahiwal partially allowed the appeal by way of order, dated 19-8-1998. The estimation of sales was found to be on higher side while the expenses allowed by the Assessing Officer were found to be on the lower side. Accordingly the sales were reduced to Rs,28,00,000 and Rs,32,00,000 while the expenses were directed to be taken at Rs,1,10,000 and Rs,1,20,000 respectively.
4. Learned Tribunal by way of the impugned order observed that the estimation of sales being based upon the stock, reported by the Circle Inspector, learned First Appellate Authority was not justified in allowing the impugned relief.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is a small shopkeeper at Renala Khurd who could not achieve the estimated turn over. Further contends and we will agree that the estimation of sales by the Assessing Officer being based mostly upon the inquiry report made more than one year after the expiry of income year, 1995-96 and more than six months after the expiry of the income year, 1996-97 the paltry relief allowed by the First Appellate Authority should not have been interfered with. All the more so when the inquiry report was not supported by any documentary evidence both as regards the availability of stock or the capital involved.
6. That being so, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside which will result in restoring the order of learned First Appellate Authority and the relief allowed thereby to the assessee.
7. .