T.A. Bukte, Judicial Member - (1.)ALL these appeals relate to the same assessee. They were therefore, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
(2.)ITA No. 1935/(PN)/1985 : This is appellant's appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals) Pune dated 2-8-1985 on several grounds. Ground No. 1 is in respect of the claim for provision of gratuity of Rs. 12,16,085. The assessee claimed this provision of gratuity as a deduction from the income without incurring any expenses. The Assessing Officer disallowed it and the CIT (Appeals) confirmed the same. At the time of hearing of this appeal, Shri V.G. Bhide, the learned counsel for the assessee did not press this ground. Hence the appeal stands dismissed on this ground.
Ground Nos. 2 and 3 relate to the confirmation of addition of Rs. 9,88,095 under the caption "Sales-tax set off. This amount was assessed on accrual basis. Now, the appellant claimed in the ground of appeal that the change in the method of accounting was bona fide and therefore, the said addition should not have been confirmed. The CIT (Appeals) mentioned in his order that no reason was adduced either before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (Appeals) why the addition should not be made under the caption "Sales-tax set off on accrual basis. Therefore, the appellant mentioned in the grounds of appeal that "during the course of proceedings it was cumbersome to keep a track of the claim of set off made in return and the claim of set off should be allowed in the assessment by passing the necessary adjustment entries in respect thereof". What is mentioned by the Assessing Officer in para 5 of his order is as under :

The assessee has changed the method of accounting of sales-tax set on from accrual basis to cash basis. As in the past, such receipt was taxed on the accrual basis. The same is taxed on this year also on accrual basis. The reasons for change are not known. Addition on this account comes to Rs. 9,88,095.

(3.)IT was submitted before the CIT (Appeals) that the addition under the caption "Sales-tax set off on accrual basis was unwarranted. Reliance was placed on his own order in the case of Matchwell Electricals for the assessment year 1977-78 and on the order of his predecessor in the case of Maharashtra Scooters Ltd. The CIT (Appeals)'s order in the case of Matchwell Eleciricals Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 248 and 249 (PN) of 1985] was in connection with duty draw back as cash assistance. The claim of sales-tax set off on accrual basis was not on the point of duty draw back as cash assistance. He held that the sales-tax set off cannot be compared with duty draw back as cash assistance. There was a material difference between the two and therefore, in his opinion, the decision in the case of Matchwell Electricals was not relevant to the facts of this case.