JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THESE are three petitions under S. 256 (2) of the IT Act, 1961. The Revenue maintains that the following three questions of law arise for consideration and that the Tribunal be directed to refer these for the opinion of this Court : "1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) with regard to the deletion of addition on account of investment in purchase price, when the order of the CIT(A) is itself based on incorrect facts and presumption of law and facts under the Evidence Act ?
(2.) WHETHER , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the order of the CIT(A) based on incorrect facts and presumption ? Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in not upholding any addition on account of purchase price paid for unrecorded purchases even when accepting that the assessee must have made some investment therein ?" Notice of these petitions given to the respondent -assessee. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
(3.) MR . R.P. Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that the assessee was not maintaining his accounts properly. Thus, the AO had made certain additions in the declared trading results. These were wrongly reduced by the CIT(A). This order was later on affirmed by the Tribunal. Thus, counsel submits that the Tribunal should be directed to make the reference to this Court.;