9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1511 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of suppressed production on the basis of electricity consumption - CIT (A)-I directing that no addition can be made merely on basis of electricity consumption formula - HELD THAT - We find there is no dispute on the fact that the Assessing Officer made addition based on the estimation with reference to the consumption of electricity. This is a case where the DGCEI scrutinized the accounts of the assessee. We further find on similar facts in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Steel Alloys Pvt. . 2015 (7) TMI 1264 - ITAT PUNE the relief was granted by the Tribunal to the assessee. Aggrieved with the said relief granted by the CIT(A), the Revenue filed the present appeal informing that the Revenue already filed an appeal before the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court for the earlier assessment years and, therefore, this is the intention of the Revenue to file the present appeal is to keep the issue alive on this issue . Considering the same, in our view, such reasons for filing the appeal is unsustainable. Considering all, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable on this issue and it does not call for any interference. Thus, the relevant grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
Issues:
Appeal against order of CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2014-15 regarding suppressed production based on electricity consumption. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue raised several grounds challenging the order of CIT(A), including the allowance of relief for suppressed production based on electricity consumption and the direction that no addition can be made solely on the basis of electricity consumption formula. The Assessing Officer made an estimation of suppressed production of the assessee company based on electricity consumption, resulting in an addition of ?4,38,86,292. The assessee relied on previous decisions, including one by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, to support their case before the First Appellate Authority. The Revenue, aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), appealed before the Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue heavily relied on the Assessing Officer's order, while the assessee's representative defended the CIT(A)'s decision by citing a previous Tribunal decision on similar facts. The Tribunal examined the facts, orders of revenue authorities, and relevant Tribunal decisions. It noted that the Assessing Officer's addition was based on an estimation related to electricity consumption, with scrutiny by the DGCEI. The Tribunal found similarities with a previous case where relief was granted to the assessee by the Tribunal. The Tribunal reviewed the CIT(A)'s order and found it relevant, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence and adherence to judicial ratios in making additions based on electricity consumption formula. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s decision was fair and reasonable, dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue. The appeal of the Revenue was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized the rule of consistency in its decision-making process. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2014-15, regarding suppressed production based on electricity consumption. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to grant relief to the assessee, citing previous Tribunal decisions and emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence in such cases. The Tribunal's decision was based on a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts and legal principles involved in the case.
|
