- (1.) FOLLOWING questions are preferred with the prayer that the Tribunal be directed to refer these questions for the opinion of this Court: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the system of accounting maintained by the assessee was such that true and correct profits could not be deduced therefrom? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the provisions of Section 145(2) had rightly been applied by the AO ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in brushing aside the accepted history of over 25 years and in not appreciating that the assessee continued to maintain the same system of accounting and the same books of accounts as had been maintained in the past and accepted all along by the Revenue ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessee had not maintained day -to -day record of consumption of furnace oil and coal, without appreciating that the same was not feasible to maintain in the assessee's line of business and had never been maintained ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal is perverse that no record of production is maintained being not based on any material ? 6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not accepting the explanation of the assessee regarding increase in consumption of furnace oil, electricity and wages ? 7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the shortage is excessive is perverse being not based on any material ? 8. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in observing that the figure of shortage was 8 per cent when the same was only 6 per cent, as shown before the Tribunal ? 9. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in estimating sales at Rs. 2,15,00,000 when there was no evidence of suppression of sales or understatement of production ? 10. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not accepting the GP rate of 4.86 per cent and applying GP rate of 7 per cent, going by the application of GP rate of 10 per cent in asst. yr. 1985 -86 by AO, although the GP rate ultimately sustained in asst. yr. 1985 -86 was only 4.6 per cent ? 11. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in basing its conclusion on some irrelevant inferences and ignoring other essential matters on record ? 12. Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has acted perversely by holding that provisions of Section 145(2) are applicable when the books were maintained in the same way and on the same pattern as in earlier years and when in the asst. yr. 1983 -84 the Tribunal itself had deleted the applicability of provisions of Section 145(2) ?'
(2.) THE AO has rejected the book results of the assessee on the ground that average cost of production has been increased to Rs. 5,400 per MT as against 4,217 per MT. No justification has been shown to this increase. Even the wages have also been increased. Assessee has also shown no justification for it. Therefore, invoking the provisions of Section 145(2), the book results were rejected and additions have been made on the ground of low GP shown in the books. What should be the addition after rejection of the book results is basically a question of fact.
(3.) WE see no perversity in the impugned order especially when the AO, CIT(A) and Tribunal, all the three authorities have given finding of fact against the assessee.;