9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- if unaccounted production was taxed and on the other hand, unaccounted purchase are also taxed, then the correct position should have been that the unaccounted purchases, alleged to have been utilized for the said production, ought to have been reduced from the unaccounted production – Decided against the Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Year 1994-95 the return of income showing the loss of income at Rs.13.33 lakhs (rounded off). After scrutiny of the assessment, certain additions were made by the Assessing Officer. The amount of Rs.86.76 lakhs (rounded off) was added on account of unaccounted production and sale of glass. 2.2. This was challenged before the CIT(A), which took into consideration the report of the tax auditors and held that it is an established position that no process of manufacturing of glass during the year was carried out. It was opined from the material presented before it that only packaging of the same was done alongwith the packed materials. It is also noted that that the Assessing Officer had treated the production shown in the excise record a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the CIT(A) by holding this; "After hearing the arguments of learned DR, we are of the considered view that there was anomaly in the approach of the A.O.. On one hand, if unaccounted production at Rs.86,76,651/- was taxed and on the other hand, unaccounted purchase of Rs.80 lakhs are also taxed, then the correct position should have been that the unaccounted purchases, alleged to have been utilized for the said production, ought to have been reduced from the unaccounted production. In any case, such an ad hoc addition was uncalled for, hence learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same. This ground of the revenue is dismissed." Both the CIT(A) and the tribunal have correctly dissected the facts while approaching the said issue. No ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssistant Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (1996)59ITD340(JAB.) held that the depreciation needs to be allowed on the entire block of assets instead of each individual assets. However, it is also observed that only those assets, which were put to use, claim was made for depreciation by the assessee and, therefore, when the claim was only in respect of those assets used during the year under consideration, it did not deny the benefit of depreciation. When challenged before the tribunal, the tribunal confirmed such deletion on the part of the CIT(A) by holding that; "Undisputedly, the assessee had carried on the business. Further, it is also not in dispute that the said factory was within the block of assets. We have noted that learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
