1. Facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a return for the assessment year 1994-1995 declaring loss. The Assessing Officer has not accepted this position rather, had determined gross profit of the appellant at the rate of 40% and accordingly taxed it. Aggrieved of the above, the appellant filed an appeal before the C.I.T., which has been accepted in the manner that gross profit rate has been reduced to 30%. This order has been upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 11.5.1998. Hence this appeal through which inter alia the following question of law has been posed for determination:-- "(ii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified to fix the G.P. Rate at 30% against declared rate of 29.41%?"
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has only urged about question-No. 2 and has argued that when in a parallel case the Assessing Officer has determined the gross profit of the similar business at the rate of 26.51%, therefore, the same rate should have been applied by the department.
3. We are afraid that the plea taken by the petitioner is destructive of the questions formulated in the appeal. Because, it is the case of the appellant itself that its gross profit rate is 29.41%, therefore, in circumstances the comparison or adhering to the parallel case was irrelevant. And if the C.I.T, has enhanced that rate only to the extent 0. 59% it cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. The question is answered accordingly.