J.K. Ranka, J.

1. These appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") at the instance of the assessee are directed against orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short "ITAT"). It is relevant for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 respectively, but being based on the identical substantial questions of law, have been heard together and are being decided by common order with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

2. Brief facts noticed for disposal of these appeals are that the assessee's are association of persons (AOP) and are carrying on the business of sale of country liquor under rules 67(1) and 67(KK) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 and retail sale of beer and Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) under rule 3A of the Rajasthan Foreign Liquor (Grant of Wholesale and Retail sale Licences) Rules, 1982 under exclusive privilege system.

3. The present appeals were admitted by this court on the following substantial questions of law:

I.T.A. No. 684 of 2008

"(i) Whether on the facts and in totality of the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the trading addition as a result of necessary concomitant of the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) ignoring the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble court in case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog, reported in (2002) 256 ITR 243 (Raj)?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in totality of the circumstances of the case and in law, in the proceedings under section 145(3) read with section 144 of the Act, addition made without any basis of computation as also without establishing nexus thereof with the available facts and circumstances if permissible in law?

(iii) Whether on the facts and in totality of the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal acted on total misconception of law in sustaining the rejection of the books of account for want of stock register and sale bills having overlooked the provisions of sections 44AA and 145(3) of the Act and rule 6F of the Income-tax Rules, 1962?"

I.T.A. No. 193 of 2008

"(i) Whether the learned income-tax authorities below were justified in making/sustaining the addition of Rs. 22,48,051 as a result of necessary concomitant of the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) in view of the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court in case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog, reported in (2002) 256 ITR 243 (Raj)?

(ii) Whether in the proceedings under section 145(3) read with section 144 of the Act, addition of Rs. 22,84,051 made without any basis of computation as also without establishing nexus thereof with the available facts and circumstances is permissible in law?"

I.T.A. No. 199 of 2008

"(i) Whether in learned income-tax authorities below were justified in making/sustaining the addition as a result of necessary concomitant of the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) in view of the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble court in case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog, reported in (2002) 256 ITR 243 (Raj)?

(ii) Whether the trading addition made without there being established the same to have been earned by the appellant during the year under consideration being a national, hypothetical or unreal addition the levy and recovery of income-tax thereon is permissible?

(iii) Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not giving the telescoping benefit of the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 as sustained on account of disallowance of expenses qua the trading addition as sustained at a higher figure?"

I.T.A. No. 158 of 2008

"(i) Whether the learned income-tax authorities below were justified in making/sustaining the addition as a result of necessary concomitant of the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3) in vie