JUDGMENT JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by V. A. MOHTA J.-The following question has been referred at instance of assessee: " Is not decision of Tribunal confirming gross profit rate of 12% contrary to evidence and material on record, especially agreements between assessee and other pharmaceutical companies, bills, correspondence, etc., whereby it was established that assessee could get profit between 5% and 7% only? " assessee deals in medicines. He sells products manufactured by different manufacturers such Pfizer, Warner, etc. For assessment year ending 1967, assessee showed gross profit of Rs. 55,484 as per his account books to which Income-tax Officer made addition of Rs. 4,917. While assessee's statement about rate of commission was accepted in respect of Pfizer and Warner products, it was not so done in respect of commission given by other companies. assessment order of Income- tax Officer gives no reason as to why book entries were rejected in part and on what basis conclusion about commission paid by other companies being 12% was arrived at. Aggrieved by addition of Rs. 4,917, appeal was carried to Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It came to be dismissed on ground that whereas agreements in respect of two companies were produced on record, agreements entered into with other companies were not produced. Further appeal was carried to Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. On date of hearing, none appeared for appellant. There was application for adjournment but it came to be rejected. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal quoted part of order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner and observed " we agree with this reasoning ". application for rehearing of appeal was made. Ex parte decision was set aside. matter was heard afresh. However, Tribunal saw no reason to take different view of matter and maintained earlier conclusion. Copies of letter of appointment from various companies such as Dumex Pharmaceuticals, Themis Agencis, National Pharmaceuticals, J. L. Morison Son and Jones (India) Private Limited were produced, which specified rates of commission. They were between 5% and 7% as disclosed in books of accounts. There is no reference whatsoever to those letters of appointment in order. Shri Thakkar, learned counsel for assessee-applicant, has submitted before us, and in our judgment rightly, that this is case of total non-application of mind to relevant material on record and that decision of confirming gross profit rate at 12% is contrary to evidence. He also made correct grievance that rehearing was treated merely as formality. Neither points urged nor documents produced find even passing, reference in order passed by Tribunal. At first blush, question would appear to be pure question of fact, but, having regard to peculiar situation to which we have made reference, it seems to us that addition on basis of 12% gross profit rate amounting to Rs. 4,917 was demonstrably for no reason. Under circumstances, we answer question in affirmative and in favour of assessee. We direct Tribunal to hear appeal afresh, consider all material on record and then arrive at final conclusion. There shall be no order as to costs. *** K.T. SAOJI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX