- (1.) THESE Income Tax Appeals u/Sec. 260A of the Income Tax Act, (for short, IT Act') are directed against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'ITAT'). Most of the appeals have been preferred by the revenue while in some of the cases, the assessees have also chosen to file appeals as well as cross objection.
(2.) SINCE a common substantial question of law is involved in the bunch cases relating to liquor contractors, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common order with consent of the parties. 2 -A In DB ITA No.117/2004, 244/2005, 254/2005 and 293/2005 following substantial questions of law were framed by the Court: Substantial question of law in DB ITA No.117/2004: ''Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate tribunal and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) were justified in deleting the additions exorbitantly without stating any logic reason or arguments despite the fact that the application of Section 145(2) of the Act was not disputed and whether the finding of the Tribunal is perverse? '' Substantial question of law in DB ITA No.244/2005: ''1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT and CIT(A) were justified in law in restricting the additions without assigning any reasons when the invoking of the provisions of section 145 of the Act has been upheld? 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT and CIT(A) has not acted perversely in reducing and restricting the trading additions without assigning any reasons and making estimation over estimation? '' Substantial question of law in DB ITA No.254/2005: ''Whether it is implicit under the provisions of Section 145(2) of the Act, 1961 to necessarily make some additions upon rejection of accounts when there is no material to support that assessee has earned higher income and under these circumstances whether the adhoc trading additions of Rs.2,00,000/ - was justified. '' Substantial question of law in DB ITA No.293/2005: ''Whether it is implicit under the provisions of section 145(2) of the Act, 1961 to make some additions on rejection of accounts when there is no material to support that assessee has earned higher income and under these circumstances whether the trading additions of Rs.80,00,000/ - was justified when the same was not supported by any material on record? '' The assessees are liquor contractors and were awarded license by the State of Rajasthan for sale of Indian made country liquor (IMCL) under Rule 67(1) and 67(kk) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 so also the retail sale of beer and Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) under Rule 3 -A of Rajasthan Foreign Liquor (Grant of Wholesale and Retail) Sale License, Rules, 1982 under exclusive privilege system for different places. In some of the cases, the assessees had formed Association Of Persons (AOP) and obtained license/contract to sell the liquor as aforesaid exclusively. The licenses were obtained by successful bidders and other than these licensees, no other person was permitted to sale the liquor which is a prohibited commodity.
(3.) IN the State of Rajasthan contracts for wholesale and retail sale of liquor are awarded separately by the Excise Commissioner for a fiscal year after obtaining tenders from the registered contractors and it comes somewhere in the month of January/February of the preceding fiscal year for contract of the next financial year and by and large, the business begins from 1st of April and ends by 31st of March of the next year.;