JUDGMENT Issue notice. Mr. Rohit Madan, advocate accepts notice on behalf of Revenue. With consent of parties, matter is finally heard. question of law urged in this appeal is: "Whether Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and lower authorities fell into error in rejecting appellant-assessee's accounts on footing that quantitative tally of ingredients and raw materials were not maintained and proceeded to arrive at improper gross profit rate as well as turnover figures?" assessee carries on his business in preparation and trading of hing. assessee filed its return for assessment year (AY) 2010-11 and declared income of Rs. 3,15,210. In scrutiny Assessing Officer (AO) rejected turnover figures and gross profit rate of 3.57 per cent. of total sale and instead directed that gross profit rate of 10 per cent. be applied, against total turnover of Rs. 6,14,84,607. Assessing Officer consequently added Rs. 39,54,014. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partially accepted assessee's contentions and granted relief to extent that gross profit rate was applied at 6.55 per cent. (as in preceding year) and confirmed addition of Rs. 21,21,220. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on assessee's further appeal refused to grant any relief and confirmed finding of lower authority. assessee argues that Assessing Officer and other authorities fell into error in not taking into consideration that quantitative tally of ingredients and raw material was available in records. It is contended that Assessing Officer's opinion was influenced by fact that gross profit rate claimed was 3.57 per cent. for concerned assessment year as against total turnover of Rs. 6,14,84,607. Learned counsel urges that previous years' turnover figures did not follow any uniform pattern, both in respect of turnover as well as in respect of gross profit rate, and that Department in all its previous years had accepted books of account and method of maintaining them. In light of this, assessee urges that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal-did not apply their mind in considering whether facts and material placed on record reflected that relevant documents evidencing procurement of raw material existed and that qualitative tally of same had been made. Learned counsel for assessee argued that Revenue went ahead with pre-disposed mind that quantitative tally of raw materials was not maintained in assessee's books. Counsel for Revenue contested assessee's submissions by pointing out that by two appeals assessee's contention was rejected after due consideration of material on record. Learned counsel highlighted that before Assessing Officer, assessee had contended that due to family problems, total turnover for current year in question had been lesser than previous years. This court has carefully considered submissions both before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. assessee categorically appears to have submitted that quantitative tally of all raw materials consumed in making/preparation of final marketable product was being maintained. Even though Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noticed this contention as matter of fact, said authority did not render any finding. Incometax Appellate Tribunal instead went by findings of lower authority and merely based its conclusion on interpretation of section 145(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961. In fact, there is assumption in paragraph 9 that assessee did not maintain quantitative details of ingredients such as mixing gum, starch and oil. This court is of opinion that having regard to assessee's stand that such details were forthcoming both by way of books as well as through quantitative tally, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have addressed himself to issue and rendered clear findings. Failure to have done so has prejudiced assessee. Consequently, impugned order is hereby set aside. matter is remitted back to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for fresh examination of books of account, specifically with regard to whether quantitative tally was undertaken of raw material used by assessee in its business activities and if so, inference is to be drawn from it and other available material on record. All rights and contentions of parties are reserved. question of law is accordingly answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. *** R. L. Traders v. Income-tax Officer