IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 40 
         ITA 1060/2010  
 . 
 CIT 
 ..... Appellant 
 Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha with Ms. Anshul 
 Sharma, Advs. 
 versus 
 . 
 LAL SONS ENTERPRISES                                            ..... 
 Respondent 
 Through Mr. Somnath Shukla, Adv. 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                               02.08.2010 
 In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 
 the revenue has called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 20th 
 January, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?D? (for 
 short ?the tribunal?) in ITA No. 3515/Del/2009 pertaining to the assessment year 
 2006-07 whereby the Tribunal has dislodged the order passed by the Commissioner 
 of Income Tax (Appeals) passed on 8th June, 2009 under Section 263 of the Act 
 and concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer on the foundation that on 
 the date of survey, the physical stock was taken and the same was compared with 
 the stock as per the books of account and further on such a thing being pointed 
 out the Assessing Officer applied the GP rate as per the tax audit report and 
 worked out profit which the assessee might have earned 
 ITA No. 1060/2010                                                        page 1 
 of 2 
 on such sale outside the books of account and added the same to the income of 
 the assessee. 
 . 
 . 
 Be it noted, the Tribunal has further observed that it is not the case of 
 the revenue that the stock found in excess was not recorded in the books of 
 account and, hence, there is no reason for making the addition on account of 
 such purchase.  The Tribunal has further opined that the entire purchase was 
 already recorded in the books of account and no separate addition was warranted 
 and what was required to be added was only the sale price of such stock which 
 was not shown in the books of account and the same having been done adding GP 
 rate of profit by the assessing officer, there was no error in the order. 
 In view of the aforesaid, the concurrence of the tribunal with the order 
 of the Assessing Officer and dislodging that of the order of the CIT(A) under 
 Section 263 of the Act cannot be found fault with inasmuch the twin test in this 
 case was not really satisfied. 
 Thus, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed in limine. 
 . 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 . 
 MANMOHAN, J 
 AUGUST 02, 2010 
 vk 
 . 
 . 
 ITA No. 1060/2010                                                        page 2 
 of 2 
 . 
 $ 46