JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of Tax Appeal No. 1358/2007, the Appellant - Department has challenged the order dated 30.11.2006 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' in ITA No. 1601/Ahd/1994 for the Assessment Year: 1990-1991 whereas by way of Tax Appeal No. 1207/2007 the Appellant - Department has challenged the order dated 30.11.2006 of the above Tribunal in ITA No. 2165/Ahd/1995 for the Assessment Year: 1991-1992. Both the above appeals pertain to one common assessee. 2. While admitting Tax Appeal No. 1358/2007 on 29.02.2008, the following substantial question of law was framed by the Court for consideration:-- "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in sustaining the additions to the extent of Rs. 2,71,350/- as against Rs. 27,13,500/- made by the Assessing Officer, after rejecting the books of accounts u/s. 145 of the Act?" 3. While admitting Tax Appeal No. 1207/2007 on 29.02.2008, the following substantial questions of law were framed by the Court for consideration:-- "A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 48,62,000/- made due to higher valuation of closing stock as compared to the average selling price? B. Whether, when the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the books of accounts u/s. 145(1), it was justified in reducing the addition at Rs. 4,40,100/- as against addition of Rs. 48,62,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of higher valuation?" 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant - Department has taken this Court to the findings of the Tribunal at Paragraphs 11 and 12.3 which reads as under:-- "11. We have heard the parties and considered the rival submissions. The books of account of assessee are basically rejected because of the four reasons. These are - (i) valuation of closing stock made at higher rate than market rate, (ii) no day-to-day quantitative details of consumption of material and production are maintained as admitted by the Directors, (iii) unaccounted production of sales i.e. 1/10th recorded and 9/10 not recorded, and (iv) yield at 86.10% as against 85.06 in the last year i.e. a burning loss of 13.90% as against 2.4% admitted by the Directors. The CIT (A) has held that all the grounds individually and cumulatively were not sufficient to reject the books of account in dealing with each and every items. He has admitted fresh evidence, which were not verifiable by the Assessing Officer. The first one is the sale bill of 6.4.1990 and certain other bills to justify the valuation of closing stock at the market price. As regards the second contention, RG.1 register and RT.12 were taken into consideration, which were checked by Excise authorities from time to time and the contention of the Revenue is that records what is entered therein are not what are kept outside. As regards the third contention, the statement of Shri Sunil Maradia as relied upon by the Assessing Officer was found to be of no help because it was retracted subsequently and in view of the fact that no defects in purchase and sale have been pointed out in the year under consideration and the consumption and production and process loss was verifiable. As regards the fourth contention, the difference in gross profit is marginal i.e. of 1% and that is held by itself to be not a ground for rejecting the book of account. In the case of Maradia Copper Industries for Asst. Year 1992-93 in ITA No. 5105/Ahd/1996 order dated 22.09.2005, the Tribunal observed as under:-- "35. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. It is established beyond doubt that assessee was manipulating its books of accounts with regard to job work done by it of the associate concern. The assessee was recording 10% of the quantity received for job work. This is further strengthened by the admission of the assessee made in respect of unaccounted job work of Rs. 5,50,000/-. It is not the case of assessee that calculation done by the AO in this regard is incorrect. The calculation is specific one and not based on estimate. In this view of the situation, we find no substance in the argument raised on behalf of the assessee. 5,50,000/-. It is not the case of assessee that calculation done by the AO in this regard is incorrect. The calculation is specific one and not based on estimate. In this view of the situation, we find no substance in the argument raised on behalf of the assessee. As the assessee itself has admitted for unaccounted job work done by it, no credence can be given to the arguments of the assessee - namely (i) that the registers were not found from the possession of partner or employee of the assessee (ii) that all the Directors of Mardia Copper Extrusion Ltd. are not partners of the assessee firm (iii) no evidence relating to unaccounted job work was found from the possession of assessee and the addition made by AO is purely on presumption basis, (iv) Assessee was not confronted with the said registers and quantity shown in Excise Challan i.e. 57F(2) were tallying with the receipts in the registers. Reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Prakash Oil Industries and Ginning Factory (supra) is also misplaced as the facts of that case are different from the facts of assessee's case. As according to the facts of this case, the assessee itself had admitted that it has done job work which is not accounted for in the books of accounts. In this view of the situation, we found no substance in the submissions of the assessee and thus the order of ld. CIT (A) in this regard is upheld. This ground is dismissed." 12.3 Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if 1% in both the years is made on the estimate sale of Rs. 2,71,35,000 in Asst. Year 1990-91 and Rs. 4,40,10,000/- in Asst. Year 1991-92 which works out to Rs. 2,71,350 in Asst. Year 1990-91 and Rs. 4,40,100 in Asst. Year 1991-92." Learned Counsel for the appellant - Department has also referred to the relevant findings of the Assessing Officer which are as under:-- "6. From the records, it is ascertained that the assessee has worked out G.P. at the rate of 6.09% last year before the Assessing Officer for the A.Y. 1989-90 whereas during the course of assessment proceedings before the rate of G.P. was wrongly shown at 20.64%. From the records, it is ascertained that the assessee has worked out G.P. at the rate of 6.09% last year before the Assessing Officer for the A.Y. 1989-90 whereas during the course of assessment proceedings before the rate of G.P. was wrongly shown at 20.64%. From the above discussion it is clear that assessee has been furnishing different figures at different times." Therefore, it is contended that the estimates ought to have been 6% which is admittedly available on gross profit for the assessee for the previous year. 5. Though served, none appears for the respondent - assessee. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the records of the case. We have taken into consideration the order of the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal, and the evidence which has surfaced on record. Taking into account the observation that the gross profit of the assessee was around 6%, it will be proper to estimate the same @ 5% and therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have estimated the gross profit @ 5%. Consequently, the issues raised in the above Appeals are answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The Tax Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.