- (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department and confirmed the order passed by CIT(A).
(2.) This Court while admitting the appeal on 16.11.2016 framed following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Tribunal is justified in upholding the decision of CIT(A) of making ad-hoc addition of Rs.5 Lac by deleting the trading addition u/s 145(3) of Rs.73,94,581/- made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of non-maintenance of stock register and decline in GP rate despite Sales constant?"
(3.) Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order passed by AO and CIT(A) and contended that AO and CIT(A) have seriously committed an error by reversing the observations made by AO, wherein it has been observed as under:- "In the light of aforesaid observations and case laws the books are rejected under provision of Section 145(3) and assessment is framed in the spirit of section 144. The G.P. chart is reproduced below:- JUDGEMENT_138_LAWS(RAJ)10_2017_1.html JUDGEMENT_138_LAWS(RAJ)10_2017_1.html When we take a glance over the chart we see that in A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 turnover is almost equal but G.P. is dipped down sizeable. In its reply dated 09.08.2010 the assessee explained that there is slight variation in the profitability under the year is due to market forces which is beyond the control of the assessee but it failed to explain the substantiate, the market forces. So being judicious and considering the totality of the facts and the fact that there cannot be a better compare case than that of the assessee itself. It would be fair and reasonable to apply G.P. rate of 33% on the turnover of Rs.7,47,20,272/- in the relevant assessment year thereby making an addition of Rs.73,94,851/- (74720272X33%=24657689- 17262838=7394851). Addition (2) Rs.73,94,851/-" And has rightly disallowed the expenses of Rs.73,94,851/- and rightly added income.;