1997 PTD 1137

ORDER

SARDAR MUHAMMAD ANWAR A. KHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) .---Cross-appeals have been field by the Department and the assessee for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 to call in question the validity and correctness of combined order of the C.I.T. (Appeals), Zone-III, Faisalabad.

2. The learned counsel for the assessee did not press the assessee's appeals. Hence, the same are dismissed as having not been pressed.

3. The assessee derived income during the years under consideration from purchase and sale of T.V. Sets, Refrigerators, Air-Conditioners and other electronics goods. The declared versions were rejected by the assessing officer for various defects enumerated in the body of the assessment order.

4. The Department is aggrieved by the reduction in G. P. rate in T. V. account from 7-1/2 % to 6-1/2 % in Refrigerator Account from 6-1/2 % to 5 % and in Air-Conditioning ,A/o from 6-1/2 % to 5.5 % by the learned C.I. T. (Appeals), is contested to be unjustified on the ground that in a parallel case of the same circle at RTN 03-01-0502181 a G.P. rate of 7-1/2 in T.V. Account, G.P. rate of 6-1/2% in Refrigerator Account and G.P. rate at 6.25% in Air- Conditioning Account had been confirmed in appeal. The appellate order relied upon the Department has not been produced. From the ground taken by the Department it is not clear whether the appellate order was passed by the first appellate authority or by the ITAT. In the absence of the order relied upon, the ground taken by the Department went remained unsubstantiated for both the years. Even otherwise the facts of every assessee are different. The copy of the impugned order annexed with the memo. of appeal is a photo-stat copy attested by the appellant himself in clear cut violation of the ITAT Rules. No application for filing the certified copy of the order appealed against has been filed by the department. No ground could be made out for our interference in the impugned order. The impugned order is fair, proper, just and does not call for any interference. Both the Departmental appeals are dismissed:

C.M.S.183/(Trib.) Appeals dismissed.