1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)

INAM ELAHI SHEIKH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).

This departmental appeal is directed against an order dated 8-7-1992 recorded by the learned CIT (Appeals), Zone-I, Lahore.

2. Statutory notices were issued but no compliance has been made by the assessee-respondent. We, therefore, proceed ex parte to decide this appeal under the provisions of rule 20(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company and derived income from packaging and printing business. In addition to the total supplies of Rs.19,078,866, which were taxed under section 80(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, the assessee declared the sales in the packaging account at Rs.22,57,

077. The sales in the Printing Section were declared at Rs.16,32,

974. The Assessing Officer discarded the declared version and he estimated the sales in the packaging account at Rs.25,00,000 which figure was also adopted in printing account. Add-backs were also made in the P & L expenses. The learned CIT(Appeals) reduced the sales estimate in packaging account to Rs.23,00,000 and in printing to Rs.17,00,

000. The addition in the salaries was deleted Whereas the additions in the transport expenses and repair and maintenance wire reduced.

4. The learned D.R. has been heard and relevant orders perused. Admittedly the assessee has shown improved results a' compared to the earlier year. In the packaging account total sales including supplies have been shown at Rs.20,688,722 whereas last year these amounted to Rs.19,202,

427. The sales as well as supplies in the printing account were shown at Rs.674,040 in the preceding year whereas in the yeas under consideration these have been shown at Rs.23,60,

195. Similarly the G.P. rate has also shown improvement. Still the Assessing Officer dec4ed to make ad hoc estimates of sales which were rightly considered to be excessive by the First Appellate Authority. The Assessing Officer has not evolved any basis for making his estimate on sales. Hence, the estimate of sales fixed by the learned CIT (Appeals) are confirmed.

5. The assessee has claimed salaries at Rs 604,000 as against Rs.433,800 in the preceding year. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.50,000 which was deleted by the learned CIT(Appeals) after examination of the evidence. The Assessing Officer has observed that no details or salary register was produced. In the opening para. of the Asessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that the details/proof of expenses had been filed. If the, salary register was not produced, he should have called for this register by issuance of the notice. Hence, no interference is made in this account. In the transportation expenses an addition of Rs.80,000 was made out of a claim of Rs.241,192 which was reduced to Rs 60,000 by the learned CIT (Appeals). No specific defect has been pointed out. Hence, no interference is made. The repair and maintenance expenses were claimed at Rs.304,282 and the Assessing Officer disallowed this expenditure with the observation that this was of a capital nature and depreciation would be allowed at 10 % ,the learned CIT (Appeals) restricted the addition to 50 % of the total claim. In absence of the departmental record the ground taken by the department on this issue remains unsubstantiated. The exact amount of the expenditure on repair and maintenance cannot be ascertained in the absence of the details. Hence, no interference is made. As a result the departmental appeal is dismissed being devoid of any of force. C.M.S./373/Trib. Appeal dismissed.