The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Anand Rice Trading Co

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.142 of 2003 Date of decision: 25.3.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Anand Rice Trading Co. -----Respondent and connected cases being I.T.A. Nos.143 and 188 of 2003 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:-Mr. Vivek Sethi, Standing Counselfor the appellant. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocatefor the respondent.for the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Since the registry has not been able to send the fileson account of fire in the Court premises, learned counsel for therevenue has furnished copies of the paper books of these caseswhich are taken on record. We proceed to decide the matter afterhearing learned counsel for the parties.2. This order will dispose of I.T.A. Nos.142, 143 and 188 of 2003 as it is stated that all the appeals involve commonquestion. 3. I.T.A. No.142 of 2003 has been preferred by therevenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar dated 9.1.2003 in I.T.A. No.240(ASR)/2002proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether, the Ld. ITAT was justified in upholding theorder of CIT(A) therein deleting the addition ofRs.5,31,978/- made on account of suppression ofyield of Rice PR 106 (Rs.5,08,732/-) and I.R.8(Rs.23,246/-) by observing that the issue is squarelycovered in favour of the assessee by the decision ofthe Special Bench of the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench inthe case of M/s Shankar Rice Co. & Others Vs.I.T.O. (2001) 249 I.T.R. 44 (A.T.) when specificdefects were found by the A.O. after examining thebooks of Account including Milling Register and AuditReport?” 4. Learned counsel for the parties point out that similarquestion was considered by this Court in I.T.A. No.35 of 2003CITv. M/s Vishnu Rice TradingCo.decided on 22.4.2003, wherein itwas held that the issue raised could not be held to substantialquestion of law. 5.Accordingly, following the earlier order of this Court,the appeals are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of eachconnected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE March 25, 2011ashwani ( RAJESH BINDAL ) JUDGE