1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)

Date of hearing: 5th May, 1996 NASIM SIKANDAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER).

The respondent in these three departmental appeals is an U.R.F. and derives income from dealing in medicines. In the three years incomes were respectively returned at Rs.2,95,265, Rs.2,91,811 and Rs.3,63,

003. The sales were returned in medicines account at Rs.17,17,347, Rs.13,40,373 and Rs.14,61,

533. The Assessing Officer estimated them at Rs.19,50,000, Rs.20,00,000 and Rs.22,00,000 in the three years involved. Also in the year 1988-89 agency sales returned at Rs.6,40,551 were enhanced to Rs.7,00,

000. In this manner net incomes were assessed at Rs.4,10,004, Rs.4,15,726 and Rs.4,82,

420. Learned first Appellate Authority AAC Range-VII, Lahore through its order recorded on 12-11-1991 confirmed the estimated sales of medicines as well as those estimated under the head agency sales. In the later two years these were reduced to Rs.16,00,000 and Rs.17,00,000 respectively. In agency sales the applied rate at 12.5 % was reduced to 10 % . However, the applied rate of 15 % on medicines was maintained.

2. The Department in the three appeals has agitated against reduction in estimated sales only.

3. Learned A.R. for the assessee respondent is present and has been heard. None has appeared for the Revenue in spite of proper service. Therefore, these appeals are taken up for disposal by resort to Rule 20(2) of the ITAT Rules, 1981.

4. Learned A.R. for the assessee contends that the departmental appeal for the year 1988-89 is totally misconceived inasmuch as the first Appellate Authority confirmed the estimated Sales both in medicines as well as agency account. Therefore, the grounds of appeal taken in this year is totally irrelevant. In the other two years it is contended that the Assessing Officer did not bring sufficient material on record to support his own estimation of sales. It is further stated that in the year 1993-94 estimation of sales was enhanced by 11 % while in the year under review the ratio is almost twice to the declared sales. Learned counsel also points out that the Department has not expressed any grievance as for the relief allowed in reduction of applied rate in agency account is concerned.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the assessee we find ourselves in agreement with him. At best this is a case of one estimate against another. As for the appeal in the year 1988-89 is concerned the appellant department appears to have prepared model ground for all--the three years without realizing that in the year 1988-89 no relief-was allowed by the first Appellate Authority as for estimation of sales in both of the accounts was concerned. The relief allowed in reduction of the applied rate has however, not been challenged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, appeal for the Assessment Year 1988-89 shall be dismissed on account of its being irrelevant and not maintainable. 5-A. In the later two years viz., 1989-90 and 1990-91 again we agree with the submissions made at the bar that the Assessing Officer did not evolve any basis to estimate the sales. It hardly needs emphasis that even after rejection of declared version an assessing officer must support its own estimate by bringing adequate material on record. This having not been done, we will agree that the, relief allowed by the first appellate authority is at best one estimate against another: In such like situation this Tribunal has never interfered for the Revenue.

6. Therefore, all the three departmental appeals fail. M.S./281/Trib. Appeals dismissed.