1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ------------------------------------------------------- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 23 of 2004 C I T, JODHPUR V/S M/s Suncity Art Exports Mr. K.K.Bissa, for the appellant / petitioner. Mr. Vikas Balia, for the respondent. Date of Order : 17.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal, by the Revenue, seeks to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 29.8.2003, whereby the Tribunal upheld the order of the learned Commissioner, who had interfered with the order of the Assessing Authority, and deleted the addition of Rs.12,93,110/- on account of trading addition. The appeal was admitted by the order dated 16.7.2004 by framing the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the 2 addition of Rs.12,93,101/-, which has been made on account of low G.P.Rate shown and whether the finding of the learned Tribunal is perverse?” We have gone through the judgments of the three authorities below. At the outset, we may observe, that so far as the perversity part of the question, formulated, is concerned, in spite of making best efforts, learned counsel could not point out any perversity in the impugned order. Thereafter, the question remains as to whether in the facts & circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of the addition, which on the facts & circumstances of the case, is a question of fact. Even otherwise, the learned Commissioner and the learned Tribunal have given detailed and cogent reasons for deleting the addition, inasmuch as the assessee had claimed a gross profit rate of 34.2%, while the Assessing Authority had applied the gross profit rate of 37%, keeping in view the previous year's gross profit rate. However, the learned Commissioner found that in the previous year, entire sale was export sale, while in the year in question, only 86.83% is the export sale, and, therefore, the gross profit rate of the previous year could not be compared. It has been considered by the Tribunal that it is the export sale, which yields 3 higher gross profit rate, as the business of artcrafts thrives mainly on the sentiments of foreigners, as compared to the indian customers. It may also be observed here, that the assessment has been made under Section 145(2) by way of best judgment assessment. In our view, the question as to what should be the gross profit rate, while making assessment under Section 145(2), is essentially a question of fact only, as it has to be “best judgment” of the authority concerned. Now, unless it is shown that in arriving at the best judgment assessment, established legal principles or legal provisions have been ignored or wrongly considered, there might not be any ground for interference. Even otherwise, the “best judgment assessment” is all the same “best judgment assessment”, not giving rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, the appeal does not have any merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. Rankawat JK,PS