9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer of ₹ 7,33,327/- on account of suppression of production due to oil gain. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the materials available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the Learned Assessing Officer observed that the assessee in the business of trading of yarn and manufacturing the crimped yarn. He observed that the assessee has shown yield at the rate 99.93% of the consumption only sand therefore, asked the assessee to explain why the yield should not be taken at 101.62% applying the ratio of the Tribunal in the case of Marmo Texturiser Pvt. Ltd. The assessee replied vide letter dated 30-11-2007 to the Learned Assessing Officer that he was rely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with details of other assessees relied on by her in support of the claim that more oil gain was shown by them. This addition based on hypothetical working out of production is not sustainable and is directed to be deleted. 5. We find that no material was brought on record by the Learned Assessing Officer to show that the assessee had in fact made an oil gain of 1.61% on use of oil in the production of yarn. We find that the assessee explained that in the case relied upon by the Learned Assessing Officer the assessee had used oil which was 5.12% of the total consumption of yarn whereas in the case of the assessee the oil used was 0.7% of the total consumption of yarn and therefore, in the case of the assessee there was no oil gain and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold by the assessee during the year and due oversight the same was not typed in the audit report. The assessee furnished certificate from the Auditor dated 1-12- 2007 copy of which is placed at page-13 of the paper book. The Learned Assessing Officer observed that this is a routine reply trying to defend the deficiencies pointed out. He also observed that even if the explanation of the assessee was accepted then also there was excess stock of 519.42 kgs and the assessee had tried to explain the same by showing return from machine room. Not being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee he made addition of ₹ 3,27,764/- on account of unrecorded production by the assessee in the books of account. 8. In appeal, the Learned Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Representative. Therefore, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground No.3 reads as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III,Surat has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 26,97,383/- on account of suppression of production due to excess consumption of electric power. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the materials available on record. In the instant case the Learned Assessing Officer observed that in the curr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
