9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 724 - AT - Income TaxUnaccounted income from unaccounted production - HELD THAT - CIT(A) had deleted the addition noting the report of the Committee specially formed for studying average variation in electricity consumption in similar mills accepting 15 % as acceptable variation. That the Ld. CIT(A) had noted from the facts of the said case that the variation fell within the range so prescribed by the Committee and accordingly deleted the addition made by the AO. In the present appeal also, we have noted that the Ld.CIT(A) , after noting the fact that the data submitted by the assessee regarding consumption of electricity and PMT production of finished goods therefrom was more reliable as opposed to that of the AO, went on to find therefrom that the variation in electricity consumption PMT of goods produced by the assessee fell within the acceptable 15 % range. DR has not controverted the aforestated findings of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). The issue stands squarely covered therefore in favour of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unaccounted income from unaccounted production. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unaccounted Income from Unaccounted Production: The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A), Patiala, which deleted the addition of ?2,11,54,288 made by the AO on account of unaccounted income from unaccounted production for the assessment year 2012-13. During the assessment proceedings, the AO analyzed the specific production process of the assessee, a manufacturer of MS Ingots, and found that the production of finished goods was directly proportional to the power consumed. The AO collected granular data regarding metered electricity consumption from the Electricity Board and observed significant variations in electricity consumption per metric ton (PMT) of finished goods produced. Based on these observations, the AO rejected the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and estimated unaccounted production and sales, leading to an addition of ?25,97,880 to the income of the assessee. The matter was carried in appeal before the CIT(A), who noted that a Committee constituted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, had conducted a detailed study to determine legitimate variations in electricity consumption vis-à-vis production of finished goods in similar industries. The Committee recommended accepting a 15% variation in power consumption per MT of finished goods as the industrial norm. The CIT(A) found that the assessee's reworking of the data showed no variation in excess of 15% and held that there was no possibility of unaccounted production since the power consumption data fell within the prescribed norms. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. The ITAT noted that the issue was identical to a previous case (M/s Service Iron & Steel Rolling Mills) where the ITAT had adjudicated in favor of the assessee, accepting the 15% variation as recommended by the Committee. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had correctly relied on the Committee's report and the reworked data provided by the assessee, which showed variations within the acceptable range. The ITAT upheld the well-reasoned order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the ITAT affirmed that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of unaccounted income from unaccounted production, as the variation in power consumption PMT of goods produced by the assessee fell within the acceptable 15% range. Order pronounced on 06.04.2021.
|
