- (1.) The following questions are raised in this appeal stated to be the questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw the learned IT AT is justified in reversing the well reasoned findingsof the learned Commissioner (Appeals) without discussing and coming into close quartersof the reasoning assigned by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) more so without pointing out any illegality, irregularity and perversity therein as such, the impugned order passed by learned IT AT is not vitiated for being against the fair procedure and the rule of law (ii) Whether learned ITAT is justified in sustaining the application of Section 145 of the Act of 1961 by giving a finding of reversal on the factsand in the circumstances of the case and in law where the learnedassessing officer has not doubted the method, regularity or thecorrectness of the accounting employed by the appellant, by recording a definite requisite finding pointing out specific defect therein, more so in view of Section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which envisages a general presumption in favour of humble appellant about following of common or regular course of business in maintenance of accounts (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned ITAT is justified in upholding the trading addition of Rs. 2,34,827 by giving a finding of reversal merely for want of stock register or on the basis of slight variation in gross profit rate irrespective of the fact that the sale is otherwise verifiable from the complete stock inventory, bills of sales & purchase and other books & material relevant thereto produced and available on record (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the finding of the learned ITAT in sustaining the trading addition of Rs. 2,34,827 is not vitiated, due to based on conjectures or surmises and on total-misconception of law suffering from non-consideration, misleading and misconstruing of the relevant and cogent facts, evidence and material apparent and patent on record, as such perversity of finding is manifest on record (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the finding of the learned ITAT that 'purchase and sales bills were not properly maintained' is not wholly unwarranted and perverse as the same is based on no material and is contrary to the record as the relevant purchase & sales bills and the complete stock inventory is apparent and patent on record (vi) Whether the impugned trading addition does not amount to interference in the business decision of the appellant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law where the learned Assessing Officer has utterly failed to point out specific defects in the books of account kept and maintained following the same method of accounting accepted in earlier years, as such is it permissible in the eyes of law, contrary to the articles 19(l)(g) and 301 of the Constitution of India which envisage guarantee of a right to freedom of business
(2.) The basic issue involved in these questions is whether there should be trading addition or not. Trading addition based on finding of fact. Fact finding does not appear to us perverse. The book results of the assessee have been rejected by the assessing officer, even uptil the Tribunal. Stock register has also not been produced. The other allegation is that assessee has diverted its income to another company where directors of assessee-company and other company are closely related.
(3.) Considering these facts, it cannot be said that the finding of fact of the Tribunal is perverse. No interference is called for.;