- (1.) This order shall dispose of I. T. A. Nos. 410 and 411 of 2006 as according to the learned counsel both the appeals arise from the same order of the Tribunal. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from I. T. A. No. 410 of 2006.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act''), against the order dated September 29, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ''A'', Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') in I. T. A. No. 807/Chandi/2001 relating to the assessment year 1998-99, claiming the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the authorities below in making addition on account of valuation of closing stock of rice superfine, on its own presumption and ignoring the appropriate evidence adduced by the appellant, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the authorities below in diverting from its own views without any basis or appropriate reasons for the same is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the authorities below in sustaining the addition on account of cash credit from one Sh. Harbans Lal, when the appellant had fully discharged its onus, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? (iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the authorities below in sustaining the addition of Rs. 16,676 on account of excess loss claimed in Bardana account, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? (v) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the authorities below, vide annexures A-1 to A-3 on its own presumption, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? (vi) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned orders annexures A-1 to A-3 are legally sustainable in the eyes of law ?
(3.) Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal as narrated in the appeal are that the assessee is a partnership concern and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of rice. The assessee filed its return on October 8, 1998, declaring a total income of Rs. 32,820. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated March 21, 2001, assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 44,76,640. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short ''the CIT (A)'') who, vide order dated June 6, 2001, partly allowed the appeal. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated September 27, 2005, partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue whereas the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee.;