- (1.) The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 20.7.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short, "the Tribunal") in Appeal No.629 (ASR)/1993, relating to the assessment year 1991-92, claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified to make any addition in the total income of the assessee, when the learned Tribunal has held that proviso to section 145(1) is not applicable ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of Tribunal is perverse, whereby directions have been issued to adopt a particular yield in Rice Phak Account, without giving any basis for the same and ignoring the comparative yield shown by the other assessees, the details of which were duly furnished to the ITAT iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, there are any reasonable basis for adopting the yield of rice phak at 2.70% when the Tribunal itself has accepted yield lower than the yield shown by the assessee himself, in other cases iv) Whether the ITAT while deciding the case can adopt the different standards of yield, in the similar set of circumstances of different assessees, without any reasonable ground v) Whether the learned ITAT is justified to ignore the written submissions made by the assessee and passing a non-speaking order on the issues involved
(2.) Briefly, the facts may be noticed. The assessee is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of rice shelling at Kotkapura, District Faridkot. For the assessment year 1991-92 relevant to Accounting period from 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991, the assessee filed its return of income showing total income at Rs.1,77,300/-. The Assessing Officer by applying first proviso to section 145(1) of the Act computed increased yield in rice and rice phak accounts and made an addition of Rs.56,595/- in rice account and Rs.1,85,430/- in rice phak account. The assessment was framed on a total income of Rs.4,30,625/-. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bathinda, [in short, "the CIT(A)] who vide order dated 16.2.1993 dismissed the same. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT (A) before the Tribunal which was partly allowed by the order dated 20.7.2001. It was held by the Tribunal that addition of Rs.56,595/- in rice account was liable to be deleted in view of decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Shanker Rice Co. v. Income Tax Officer, 249 ITR 44 (AT). It was also ordered to adopt the yield of rice phak at 2.70% against 1.28% shown by the assessee and 3.20% adopted by the assessing officer. Hence the present appeal by the assessee.
(3.) Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal was in error in adopting the yield of rice phak at 2.70% as against the actual yield shown by the assessee by invoking Proviso to section 145(1) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal had accepted the books of account when addition on account of yield of rice was deleted but the Tribunal without adverting to the applicability of Proviso to Section 145(1) of the Act has wrongly relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.627(ASR)/1993 in the case of M/s Vijay Rice Mills Kotkapura v. ITO, Kotkapura, to sustain the addition on Rice Phak. It was urged that in case of agricultural produce, there have to be special circumstances for taking yield of one person as applicable to the other as agricultural produce depends upon various factors and varies from place to place and upon activities carried on the land. It was further contended that the books were wrongly and impliedly rejected by invoking Proviso to Section 145(1) of the Act as the Tribunal had not adverted to this aspect and had not recorded any finding relating to any infirmity in the books of account of the assessee.;