9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while framing assessment on 24.1.1991 for the year 1989-90 qua the assessee, had made an addition of Rs.7,09,085/-, inter alia, in trading account on account of difference in value of rice, rice bran, phuk and husk. This addition was due to overall shortage in milling in comparison to the total paddy milled. The overall shortage by the assessee in milling was taken to be 10.30% of the total paddy milled. It was considered by the revenue to be excessive. It was observed that the paddy having more moisture content is generally sold at much less price than the support price but it was found that almost all the purchases of paddy by the assessee were either at support price or for even more price than this. It was thus concluded that the moistu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd he got relief of Rs.5,32,085/- in the trading account. 5. Undettered, against confirmation of additioin of Rs.1,77,000/-, the appellant knocked at the door of the Tribunal in appeal. Additional ground for challenging findings of the AO regarding rejection of its books of accounts in terms of Section 145(2) of the Act had also been taken. Considering additional grounds taken by the assessee in justification of genuineness of books of accounts, defects pointed out by the AO in his assessment order while rejecting the books of accounts were also appraised and evaluated. The Tribunal found merit in verdict of the AO regarding rejection of books of accounts and found no merit even in additional pleas raised by the assessee. Sequelly, additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs.1,77,000/- on account of supression of yield of rice to the tune of 562 quintals by the assessee and taking rate of Rs.315/- per qunital, thus, was finally approved. Relevant extract of the order (Annexure P-3) of the Tribunal for ready reference is appended as below: "It is observed that the AO pointed out two comparable cases who had shown yield of rice at more than 66%. The Ld. Counsel did not refer to the aforesaid cases relied upon by the AO. Instead he has filed a chart of yield in the case of nine mills from Sunam, wherein the yield is 65% or more. In the case of assessee the yield of rice has been shown only at 64.75%. Having regard to the aforesaid cases as relied upon by the Ld. Counsel as also the cases relied upon by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
