- (1.) We have heard Sri Shakeel Ahmad learned counsel for the appellant assessee and the learned standing counsel Sri Subham Agarwal.
(2.) As the controversy involved in both the appeal is identical, the same is being decided by a common judgment and order being passed in Income Tax Appeal no.148 of 2016 as the leading case.The defect pointed out in the Income Tax Appeal no.58 of 2016 is removed, the deficiency is made good.
(3.) The Income Tax Appeal no.148 of 2016 has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009- 10. Out of the questions of law (i) to (iv) framed in the appeal, this appeal is admitted by this court on 30.5.2016 on the questions of law (i) and (ii), which are hereinunder: "(i) Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the well reasoned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without assigning any good reason to estimate the yield of sugar at 8% and baggase at 33.21%? (ii) Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deviating from the findings of the Tribunal in appellant's own case for earlier assessment year?";