PAWAN KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is in appeal under Section 260 -A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against an order dated 17.05.2012 (A -3) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench -A, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 1119/CHD/2011 in respect of the assessment year 2008 -09. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the assessee sought report from the National Analytical Laboratory, Nabha in respect of yield for the cotton seeds but in spite of said report, the Tribunal has assessed the yield at 11 percent as against 9.85 percent declared by the assessee in respect of oil from cotton seeds.

(3.) WE do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that in the previous year, the appellant has given the quantity of cotton seed, mustard and ground nut crushed separately but in the year in question, the yield of oil and oil cakes have been given in consolidated form. The sales of oil and oil cakes have been shown in the manufacturing account in consolidated form although there is wide variation in the market price in these products. The Tribunal also noticed the fact that assessee has preferred to put up a consolidated account of different types of oil seeds for the reasons best known to him. The Tribunal also noticed the fact that there was wide variation in the percentage of yield of oil, sale rates of oil and oil cakes in the market, but keeping in view the yield disclosed by the appellant in the consolidated form not only the books of account were rejected but also the yield was assessed in a particular manner. The order passed by the Tribunal is based upon pure findings of fact. We find that first substantial question of law does not arise for consideration.