ORDER IFTIKHAR AHMAD BAJWA, ACOUNTANT MEMBER.- In the two appeals relating to Assessment Years 1990-91 and 1991-92 additions in trading as well as P&L account are being contested.
2. Appellant, a Registered Firm, derived income from manufacturing and Sale of Achar, Chatni and Muraba. For the two years the position of trading accounts was under:- A/Y Declared Assessed Fixed in Appeal.
1990-91 Salcs.9,67,953/- 11,50,000/- 11,50,000/- G.P. Rate 18.60%. 20% 20% 1991-92 Sales..10,61,041/- 13,00,000/- 12,50,000/- G.P. Rate 17.57% 20% 20% The accounts were rejected with routine observations and estimate of sales as well as the GP rate of 20% for the two years was stated to be as per history of the case. For assessment year 1990-91, the estimate of sales was upheld by the CIT(A) mainly on the ground that the sales had not shown any improvement over the preceding few years while in the next year the CIT(Appeals) found the estimate of sales to be somewhat excessive and reduced the same by a small margin. For Assessm ent Years 1980-81 to 1989-90 assessments were completed under the self-assessment scheme. For the earlier years, the petitions of sales declared and assessed was as under:- A/Y Declared Assessed 1975-76 4,15,227/- 4,20,000/- (As per CIT(Appeal's) Order)
1976-77 5,79,271/- 5,85,000/- (As per CIT(Appeals) Order)
1977-78 5,08,325/- 5,15,000/- (As per Tribunal's Order)
1978-79 4,10,640/- 4,25,000/- (As per Tribunal's Order)
1979-80 6,00,250/- 6,50,000/- (As per Tribunal's Order)
Considering the history of the case, estimate of sales for the years under appeals was indeed excessive. It was pointed out by appellant's authorized Representative that the entire sales during the period under appeal were verifiable and almost 99% of the sales were on credit. List of sales for the two years were produced on the date of hearing. The DR was unable to point out any unverifiable sales in these lists. According to the AR, even the to had been unable to find any unverifiable sales during the course of assessment proceedings. Considering the past history and circumstances of the case, the sales for Assessment Years 1990-91 and 1991-92 are reduced to Rs.
10,00,000/- and Rs.11,00,000/-. The rate of profit was in line with the past history and does not call for any interference. The addition in the trading account would be modified accordingly.
3. So far as P&L expenses are concerned, the expenditure claimed under the head "packing expenses" for Assessm ent Year 1990-91 was totally disallowed whereas in Assessment Year 1991- 92 50% of the claim was disallowed. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 50% for Assessment Year 1990-91 while the disallowance for assessment year 1991-92 was maintained. Complete details of the expenses under this head were available with the appellant. The and bucks on the basis of a gemote assessm ent were apparently unjustified and are, therefore, deleted. The and backs under other heads do not call for any interference.
4. The appeal succeeds as above.