SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THE asst. yrs. 1990 -91, and 1991 -92 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is right in law in assessing the income by applying 3 per cent net profit rate on the gross receipts - on the following substantial question of law : "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has erred in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) directing to apply 3 per cent net profit rate as against 5 per cent applied by the AO on gross receipts even after holding that the AO rightly rejected the books of account as various expenses such as wages, labour, purchases remained unverifiable -
(2.) BOTH the parties have agreed that the facts, circumstances and substantial questions of law of all the appeals are identical in nature. Hence, all the appeals are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership concern doing contract business from last 20 years for MES at various locations where MES awards contracts work. During the assessment years under consideration, the AO found various discrepancies in the books of accounts and rejected the same. The AO estimated 10.27 per cent, 11.96 per cent and 5 per cent net profit rate for the asst. yrs. 1990 -91, 1991 -92 and 2005 -06 respectively. In appeal, the CIT (A) has affirmed the same but the Tribunal for the asst. yrs. 1990 -91 and 1991 -92 has restricted the net profit rate at 3 per cent. The same stand was taken in the subsequent years. Being aggrieved, the Department has filed the present appeals. With this background, learned counsel for the appellant Sri D.D. Chopra submits that more or less the facts in all the assessment years under consideration are identical. He further submits that in the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1991 -92, the AO verified various purchases debited in accounts by making cross -verification from suppliers. Results of inquiries made from several suppliers reflected that the purchases were bogus. The discrepancy was confronted to the assessee who replied that the books of accounts had been lost while the accountant was bringing them from Delhi to Lucknow. In addition to above, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the account of M/s Mutho Lal Dheeraj Mal, Jhansi had shown that certain payments received during the asst. yr. 1991 -92 to the tune of Rs. 1,19,000 from assessee but these payments did not find any place in the books of assessee. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in law in restricting the net profit rate with the reason that on cross -verification, the AO found that the purchases were either inflated or bogus. These aspects were not considered by the Tribunal.;