Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Smt. Krishna Babbar Vs. Cit

Smt. Krishna Babbar vs Cit

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 08, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710629

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Case Number
IT Appeal No. 54 of 2002 8 May 2002
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

In the Delhi High Court Dalveer Bhandari & Vikramajit Sen, JJ. -

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Krishna Babbar

Advocate C.S. Jain,;for the assessed; R.D. Jolly and; Ajay Jha,;

Respondent

Cit

Legal References

Reported In
[2002]123TAXMAN992(Delhi)

Excerpt

in the delhi high court dalveer bhandari & vikramajit sen, jj. - orderthis appeal is directed against the order dated 10-9-2001 passed by the tribunal.2. brief facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under :in this case admittedly the books of account of the impugned assessments were not complete till the date of search, i.e., 1-8-1988. the assessment officer has invoked section 145(2) of the income tax act, 1961. the action of the assessed was upheld by the tribunal.3. in the assessment year 1987-88 the assessed had declared gross profit rate at 0.9 per cent and in the assessment year 1986-87 the gross profit rate was around 0.78 per cent. in the absence of relevant material on record, the assessing officer applied gross profit rate at 1.5 per cent. this rate was found to be on higher side by the tribunal. the tribunal correctly held that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessing officer should have applied gross profit rate at 0.9 per cent. the tribunal while setting aside the order of the commissioner (appeals), had directed the assessing officer to recalculate the additions after applying the gross profit rate at 0.9 per cent on total sales of the assessed.4. the order passed by the tribunal is just and proper. no interference is called for. the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the order dated 10-9-2001 passed by the Tribunal.

2. Brief facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under :

In this case admittedly the books of account of the impugned assessments were not complete till the date of search, i.e., 1-8-1988. The Assessment Officer has invoked section 145(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the assessed was upheld by the Tribunal.

3. In the assessment year 1987-88 the assessed had declared gross profit rate at 0.9 per cent and in the assessment year 1986-87 the gross profit rate was around 0.78 per cent. In the absence of relevant material on record, the assessing officer applied gross profit rate at 1.5 per cent. This rate was found to be on higher side by the Tribunal. The Tribunal correctly held that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessing officer should have applied gross profit rate at 0.9 per cent. The Tribunal while setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), had directed the assessing officer to recalculate the additions after applying the gross profit rate at 0.9 per cent on total sales of the assessed.

4. The order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. No interference is called for. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial