under reference. While w o rking out the GP, the assesse e has included other incom e of Rs. 26, 27, 243. PAge 17 o f the paper book, which is a copy of audited account, show s profit on sale of investments, i.e. sale of shares at Rs. 23,49,426. This is includ e d in the income of Rs. 26, 27, 243. Such profit had n o thing to do with the contrac t receipts as the same w a s on sale of shares on whic h assessee had shown l ong terms capital gain o f Rs.11,31,066. Thus the a mount of Rs. 23,49,426 Wa s required to be reduced f r om the income for working ou t the GP rate. If we deduct a n amount of Rs.23,49,426 fro m the total credits on incom e side of Rs.2,86,65,379, the ne t amount remains at Rs.2, 6 3,15,953. Likewsie, amount o f Rs.23,49,426 being profit on sale of shares was require d to be reduced from the G P of Rs. 32,73,557. If we do so, the GP works out to Rs. 9 ,24, 131 (3273557 23,49,426). The same works out to 3.51% as against GP rate o f 10.87% and 9.63% of the assessment years 90<91 and 91 < 92 respectively. Therefor e , the contention of the assesse e that GP shown by the a s sessее for the assessment yea r under reference is bette r than the GP of the earlie r assessment years is absolutely wrong and this is nothin g but an attempt to mislead t he Bench.
