High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
CIT vs. Bansal Rice & General Mills
Asst. Year 1989-90
G.S. Singhvi & Nirmal Singh, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 185 of 1999
26th July, 2000
R.P. Sawhney with Rajesh Bindal, for the Appellant : None, for the Respondent
G.S. Singhvi, j. :
In this appeal filed under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), the appellant has sought determination of the following questions of law :
“(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,65,000 made on account of low yield of rice and its by-products and also deleting the addition of Rs. 25,000 confirmed by the CIT(A), in the rice amount ?
(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the detailed reasons discussed in the assessment order, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that there was no justification on the part of the Tax authorities to apply the provisions of s. 145(2) which was upheld by the CIT(A)?”
2. A perusal of the record shows that in respect of the asst. yr. 1989-90, the return filed by the respondent-assessee was not accepted by the assessing authority who made additions to the tune of Rs. 2,90,000 on the ground that the assesseeâs account suffered from various defects. It observed that no day-to-day stock tally for phak, husk and driage had been maintained, actual weighment of paddy issued for milling was not done and no record of dirt, dust and other impurities had been maintained. The assessing authorities also initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patiala [for short, “the CIT(A)”], partly reversed the order of the assessing authority and made deletion to the extent of Rs. 2,65,000. The Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, “the Tribunal”), dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order passed by the CIT(A). Shri R.P. Sawhney argued that the view taken by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal suffers from an error of law, inasmuch as, neither of them has given reason for substantially deleting the additions made by the assessing authority. However, he candidly admitted that ITC No. 81 of 1999 (CIT vs. Bharat Rice Mills) [reported at (2001) 169 CTR (P&H) 455] sought by the Revenue has been dismissed by this Court.
We have gone through the order passed by this Court in ITC No. 81 of 1999 (CIT vs. Bharat Rice Mills) (supra) and the record of this case and are of the view that no question of law arises for consideration by this Court in the present appeal. The CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for setting aside the addition made by the assessing authority and the Tribunal has given its independent reasons for affirming the appellate order. Therefore, I do not find any valid ground to entertain this appeal more so because in ITC No. 81 of 1999 (CIT vs. Bharat Rice Mills) (supra), the Court has already declined the Revenueâs prayer for directing the Tribunal to refer similar question for the opinion of this Court.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
[Citation : 250 ITR 588]