RAMESH SINGH ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action estimating @5% GP on the total sales in wine shop business.

Mr.Rama Rao vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the instant issue is no more resjudicata, as tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s and hon'ble jurisdictional high court have been directing such an estimation @3% in retail liquor sale business.

We find no force in assessee’s foregoing contentions per se. Hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s in CIT Vs. BR Constructions (1993) [202 ITR 222] (AP) (FB) held long back that only a judicial decision discussing the relevant statutory provisions in the light of the corresponding facts from a valid precedent and not otherwise. Mr.Rao fails to rebut the clinching fact that such an estimation is based on a peculiar facts of the case than discussing at length the entire factual matrix in the light of the corresponding statutory provisions does not carry any precedent. The Revenue also fails to dispute that neither of the lower authorities have taken into consideration any comparable instance for the purpose of arriving at the impugned estimation. We deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts that a 4.5% estimation of income herein would be just and proper with the rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee partly succeeds in his former substantive grievance.

Learned counsel for the assessee is very fair that the assessee no more wishes to press for his second substantive ground challenges correctness income from other sources addition of Rs.94,670/- keeping in mind the smallness of the amount. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.