9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reinafter) dated 17.3.2006, since sustained by the first appellate authority, by assuming the sale rate of cashew kernels, in the manufacture and export of which the assessee is engaged, sold to its sister concerns during the relevant year (at 470867.440 kgs. in 36184 tins), at `171 per kg., as against the average sale rate of `165 per kg. This was as the closing stock thereof (as at the year-end) stood admittedly valued by the assessee at cost, and it failed to furnish any satisfactory reason for the sale to its sister concerns, being exporters, entitled to benefit u/s. 80HHC, at below cost. The AO was thus of the view that there was no reason for the sales being made at below cost, and the assessee, thus, incurring a loss to that extent, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y 2004-05 / copy on record), on the same set of facts and circumstances, restored the matter back to the file of the first appellate authority, with directions. A like treatment, it was urged, in the present case, would be in order. The ld. DR, on the other hand, would submit that the matter stood restored back in the case of T.C. Usha (supra) for lack of proper opportunity, while none exists in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The assessee had been afforded sufficient opportunity by both the authorities, and had failed to evidence its claim/s. Accordingly, the impugned order merits being confirmed, being duly supported by case law. 5. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Without doubt, the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on cost that has to be estimated, on some definite basis, to arrive at the cost of production for each grade. Under the circumstances, we only consider it fit and proper to, likewise, restore this matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with like directions, further directing the assessee to make available a copy of the said order thereto for the purpose. So, however, we may clarify that though the Revenue s stand is the same for both the cases, it shall in adjudicating the instant case, not be bound by its decision in the case of T.C. Usha (supra), and shall decide the same on its own merits; the matter being purely factual, so that it may well be that the difference stands explained which is to be primarily on the basis of materials a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
