2015 (8) TMI 1575 - AT - Income Tax

Determination of suppressed production - estimation of production and the consequent profits thereon on the basis of consumption of electricity vis- -vis production of TMT bars - addition was worked out in the hands of the assessee on the basis of US standards - CIT(A) in applying gross profit rate of 4% and consequently allowing manufacturing and administrative expenses on the unaccounted production - HELD THAT - The issue arising in the present appeal is identical to the issue before the Tribunal in Shree Om Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (10) TMI 2316 - ITAT PUNE and following the same reasoning we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of excess production following the consumption of electricity as per US standards as not merited. However addition of additional income in the hands of assessee on account of admission made by the assessee of clandestine removal of goods without payment of Excise duty is to be made in the hands of the assessee as per our directions in the above said appeals. Appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the assessment order was valid and not barred by limitation.
3. Determination of quantum of suppressed production/sale of TMT bars based on consumption of electricity.
4. Addition on account of suppressed production.
5. Estimation of gross profit on suppressed sales.
6. Enhancement of addition to the income of the appellant without granting any opportunity of being heard.
7. Justification of quantifying the suppressed production at 4%.
8. Allowability of manufacturing and administrative expenses on the unaccounted production.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment:
The grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee against the reopening of assessment and whether the assessment order was valid and not barred by limitation were not pressed by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee and hence, these grounds of appeal were dismissed as not pressed.

2. Determination of Quantum of Suppressed Production/Sale:
The issue in grounds of appeal No.3 to 6 raised by the assessee is against the estimation of production and the consequent profits thereon on the basis of consumption of electricity vis-`a-vis production of TMT bars. The Tribunal noted that the addition was worked out in the hands of the assessee on the basis of US standards. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions in similar cases where it was held that the consumption of electricity for the manufacture of mild steel ingots/billets depends on various factors and there was no justification to charge the assessee with suppressed production based on electricity consumption alone.

3. Addition on Account of Suppressed Production:
The Tribunal found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on erratic consumption of electricity and was not sustainable. The Tribunal referred to the decision in SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. where it was held that no addition could be made on the basis of erratic consumption of electricity without any corroborative evidence of suppressed production or clandestine removal of goods.

4. Estimation of Gross Profit on Suppressed Sales:
The Revenue's appeal against the application of a gross profit rate of 4% by the CIT(A) was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the addition on account of suppressed production based on electricity consumption was not sustainable, and therefore, the estimation of gross profit on such suppressed production was also not justified.

5. Enhancement of Addition Without Opportunity of Being Heard:
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had enhanced the addition to the income of the appellant without granting any opportunity of being heard. This was considered a violation of the principles of natural justice, and the enhancement was deleted.

6. Justification of Quantifying the Suppressed Production at 4%:
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was justified in quantifying the suppressed production at 4% as against the total suppressed production determined by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal referred to its previous decisions where it was held that the entire value of alleged suppressed production/sales could not be treated as income, and some reasonable percentage of the gross profit should be estimated.

7. Allowability of Manufacturing and Administrative Expenses:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow manufacturing and administrative expenses on the unaccounted production. It was noted that these expenses were already borne by the production shown in the books of accounts, and therefore, the addition on account of these expenses was not justified.

Conclusion:
The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of excess production following the consumption of electricity as per US standards. However, the addition of additional income in the hands of the assessee on account of admission made by the assessee of clandestine removal of goods without payment of Excise duty was to be made as per the directions in the appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that no addition could be made on the basis of erratic consumption of electricity without any corroborative evidence of suppressed production or clandestine removal of goods.