- (1.) THE challenge in this appeal filed under Section 260 -A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee is to the order dated 30.8.1999 (Annexure P -3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in ITA No.749(ASR)/93 -94 pertaining to the assessment year 1990 -91.
(2.) THE appellant -assessee has sought consideration of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: - (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders Annexures P -1 and P -3 are legally sustainable? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the additions made on account of excess wastage even though, no discrepancy or defect was present in the Books of Accounts of the assessee -appellant, is legally sustainable? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the addition made on account of excessive wastage with there being no material and cogent evidence on record and the same being based on presumptions and conjectures, is legally sustainable? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of the addition made on account of excess wastage by Appellate Tribunal is legally sustainable without taking recourse to proviso to Section 145(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents were legally justified in making an addition on account of excess wastage on mere surmises without there being any evidence on record to support the same? A perusal of these questions reveals that that these are neither happily worded nor are terse and telling. In fact, the real controversy is as to whether without rejection of books and accounts, the results arrived at by the assessee based on his books can be ignored? It is in this light that the entire dispute is being discussed. Finalizing assessment for the assessment year 1990 -91, a sum of Rs.1,22,547/ - was added in the income of the assessee, a manufacturer of pins and steel bars, interalia on account of excessive wastage shown by the assessee. It was vide order dated 9.10.1991 (Annexure P -1) of the Assessing Officer. Additions made on many other counts being not relevant, are not being discussed.
(3.) IN appeal preferred by the assessee, this addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted, though additions on some other counts made by the Assessing Officer were upheld by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalandhar. It was vide order dated 19.4.1993 (Annexure P -2). Inter -alia against this order of deletion, the Department went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, no appeal was preferred by the assessee regarding upholding of certain other additions which had been ordered against it, by CIT (Appeals).;