IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 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 GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi, Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Since the registry has not been able to send the files on account of fire in the Court premises, learned counsel for the revenue has furnished copies of the paper books of these cases which are taken on record. We proceed to decide the matter after hearing 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 common question. 3. I.T.A. No.142 of 2003 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate I.T.A. No.142 of 2003 Tribunal, Amritsar dated 9.1.2003 in I.T.A. No.240(ASR)/2002 proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether, the Ld. ITAT was justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) therein deleting the addition of Rs.5,31,978/- made on account of suppression of yield of Rice PR 106 (Rs.5,08,732/-) and I.R.8 (Rs.23,246/-) by observing that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench in the case of M/s Shankar Rice Co. & Others Vs. I.T.O. (2001) 249 I.T.R. 44 (A.T.) when specific defects were found by the A.O. after examining the books of Account including Milling Register and Audit Report?” 4. Learned counsel for the parties point out that similar question was considered by this Court in I.T.A. No.35 of 2003 CIT v. M/s Vishnu Rice TradingCo. decided on 22.4.2003, wherein it was held that the issue raised could not be held to substantial question 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 each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE March 25, 2011 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2