9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the excise authorities and no discrepancy had been noted in the relevant statutory registers. Even the calculation of the excess production based on consumption of chemicals was factually incorrect particularly since the chemical was not the principal raw material. CIT (A) also noted that the AO had made additions by taking the sale of AMT cut at ₹ 3 per cut, which was inclusive of excise duty of 60 paise.. The order of the CIT (A) has elaborately discussed the said facts in support of its conclusion. With the factual findings of both the CIT (A) and the ITAT being concurrent, the Court is of the view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration, as far this issue is concerned. - Decided against revenue. Addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dation of the alleged understatement of consumption was therefore found to be misconceived. 90 gm of VMT comprised polyester film (76.34 grams) and chemicals (14 grams). The AO in making the addition did not consider the weight of the chemicals. As a result, the entire calculation was rendered erroneous. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 625/2010 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2015 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Rohit Madan, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Satyen Sethi, Adv ORDER 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') is directed against the order dated 17th July 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No. 4658/Del/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 375 ITR 431 (Del) in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 4. Question C is covered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in JCIT v. Mandideep Engineering Packing Industries (P) Ltd. (2007) 292 ITR 1 (SC) and the decision of this Court in CIT v. SKG Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 423 (Del) which in turn refers to the decisions in CIT v. J.P. Tobacco (1998) 229 ITR 123 (MP) and CIT v. Chokshi Contracts Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 587 (Raj). 5. As far as Question A is concerned the facts are that during the relevant AY the Assessee was engaged in the manufacture of audio magnetic tapes ('AMT'), assembly of audio cassettes, manufacture of video magnetic tape ('V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presumed the length of the entire polyester film roll to be 6100 m, whereas, all rolls were not of that length. Even the wastage of batch of roll was presumed to be 14% without making a comparison with the actual production. There was no reason given by the AO as to why the details of actual production were ignored. Moreover, the manufacturing record was verified by the excise authorities and no discrepancy had been noted in the relevant statutory registers. Even the calculation of the excess production based on consumption of chemicals was factually incorrect particularly since the chemical was not the principal raw material. CIT (A) also noted that the AO had made additions by taking the sale of AMT cut at ₹ 3 per cut, which was inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was unable to point out any defect in the books maintained by the Assessee. 11. Here again, the findings of the CIT (A) concurred with by the ITAT are entirely based on facts. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises in this regard. 12. Question F relates to addition of ₹ 2,35,24,595 on account of alleged undisclosed investment in production of VMT. The AO proceeded on the basis that the weight of a VMT E-80 cut, exclusive of wastage, was 90 grams. Inclusive of wastage the weight was 104.65 grams. The AO concluded that from a polyester film roll having weight of 41.99 kg, 550 finished VMT cuts could be produced. On that basis, the AO concluded that the Assessee had understated its consumption of polyester film roll b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
