9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -94) (A) Whether the Appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition made in respect of excess consumption of raw materials, on the basis of evidences/ material collected, during the course of search ? (B) Whether the Appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 33,38,680/- made in respect of bogus loss on account of transaction with sister concerns ? TAX APPEAL No.30 of 2009 (Assessment year 1994-95) (A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition made in respect of excess consumption of raw materials, on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring for the Revenue and perused the order passed by the authorities below. The question (A) is common in all the three Tax Appeals. It is with regard to alleged excess consumption of raw material on account of adjustment for increase in closing stock and consumption of packing materials. The facts relating to this issue are that the assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of woven sacks. For the purpose of production, the assessee uses LDPE and HDPE granules to manufacture tapes, out of which fabric is made and the same is woven into sacks. A search was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 4.1.1994, during the course of which it was found that the assessee has shown excess consumption of raw material in its bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortage at all. Nothing was found during the course of search which suggests that the assessee was indulging in excess consumption accepted in the statement of two employees. The statement of Mr.Somani is also not corroborated by the evidence which could prove that the assessee was indulged in excess consumption of raw material. On the face of this finding of fact, it is difficult to believe that any substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The question (B) for the assessment year 1993-94 is with regard to deletion of the addition of ₹ 33,38,680/- made by the assessing officer being bogus loss on account of transaction with sister concerns, on the basis of statement under Section-132(4) of the Act and as co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier and it cannot be said to be a substantial question of law. Question (B) is with regard to disallowance of claim of the depreciation on asset installed in Woven Label Division amounting to ₹ 35,42,089/-. A specific finding is recorded by the Tribunal that the machinery were installed during the year under consideration and hence there was no justification in disallowing the said claim of depreciation. So far as Question (C) is concerned, it is with regard to the allegation made against the assessee that it has received amount in cash on sale of waste. The assessee has claimed waste at 13.78% during the relevant assessment year whereas the normal waste in the assessee's factory is 12% which had already been recorded in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he return of income and also payments are supported by bank statements. The Assessing Officer was provided the complete address of the person concerned. The facts on record do not support the action of the Assessing Officer as estimation of cutting, stitching and printings of bags charges. The Tribunal has further observed that the addition has not been supported by any evidence and there is no documentary evidence available which supports that the assessee had not paid these expenses. Again for making this addition the Assessing Officer has relied on the statement of Shri Manish Somani. The evidential value was not accepted over and above the fact that the same was retracted. Considering this aspect of the matter, this addition was rightly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer has not properly appreciated the fact that the entirely a different commodity was purchased and there was no question of purchasing the same item entirely on a higher price. We are, therefore, of the view that this can also be a finding of fact and no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.
So far as assessment year 1998-99 is concerned, two questions are framed by the Revenue. Both the questions are as such covered by the earlier years and hence the same cannot be said to be a question of law.
In the result, questions proposed in all the three appeals are based on findings of facts and hence the appeals deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
