PRAKASH KRISHNA, MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, JJ. - (1.) SRI R.K. Upadhyaya, Advocate has filed his appearance slip on behalf of the appellant. Let it be taken on record.
(2.) HEARD Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the assessee - respondent. Present appeal has been filed under Section 260 -A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 11th March, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench 'C' New Delhi) in I.T.A. No. 2108/D/2008 relating to assessment year 2003 -04.
(3.) IN memo of appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been sought to be raised: (1) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the books of accounts cannot be rejected on the basis of discrepancies and defects found in the valuation of stock and in the cost of production and that after doing the same profit may not be estimated by the Assessing Officer ?" (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee's valuation of stock was correct, ignoring the fact that the stock inventory as per books of accounts shown to the A.O. was different from the stock inventory filed with the bank, when the addition on this score itself has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Recon Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 286 ITR 637 ?" (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in ignoring the ratios laid down by the various courts wherein it has been held that in the absence of vouchers/quantitative tally of stock, profit can be estimated by the A.O. (S.N. Namasivayam Chettiar Vs. CIT (SC) 38 ITR 579) ?" ;