ISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI, J. - (1.) . Appellant has filed appeal against the order of learned Tribunal, by which appeal of the respondent was partly allowed and cross -objections of the appellant were dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Excise Department, Government of India, issued licence to the appellant for whole region of Chittorgarh district, Rawatbhata and Begu. Appellant submitted return of income -tax for the asst. yr. 1998 -99 declaring the sale of country liquor to the tune of Rs. 17,20,98,045 and declared gross profit of Rs. 9,55,66,891 @ 55.53 per cent and declared sale of IMFL/beer to the tune of Rs. 11,59,44,719 and declared gross profit @ 6.04 per cent on sales. AO applied provisions of s. 145(2), as no primary sale vouchers had been issued for retail sales, so the books of accounts were rejected and while rejecting the books GP rate of 56 per cent was applied against 55.53 per cent on sale of country liquor. Sale of country liquor was increased to the tune of Rs. 17,50,00,000 against shown in return as Rs. 17,20,98,045 and thus made an addition of Rs. 24,33,109 under the head 'Sale of country liquor' and in the same way in case of IMFL/beer, GP rate was estimated at the rate of 6.50 per cent on estimated sales of Rs. 12,00,00,000 against GP rate of 6.04 per cent on the sale of Rs. 11,59,44,719 and thus increased income by Rs. 8,00,114 on this count. 8,00,114 made by the AO on the sale of IMFL/beer as well granted relief of Rs. 22,26,691 on the sale of country liquor.
(3.) LEARNED Tribunal, by impugned order, partly accepted appeal of respondent and upheld order of assessing authority in regard to addition of gross profit on the sale of country liquor and rejected cross -objections of the appellant but upheld order of CIT(A) regarding deletion of gross profit of Rs. 8,00,114 on the sale of IMFL/beer, against which order this appeal has been filed by the appellant. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the applicability of s. 145(3) 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the additions made by the AO on the basis of best judgment assessment which is founded on the very basis which has been the reason for rejecting the books of accounts as being not verifiable and not considering the available definite material on the basis of which best judgment could be made keeping in view other attending circumstances - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.;