9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y were not properly explained before the AO - We have observed in the open Court before the parties that the matter needs to be verified by conducting detailed enquiry and examination on facts. We set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue while complying with the principles of natural justice as indicated hereinabove. Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 2285/PUN/2017 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) - - - Dated:- 29-6-2021 - SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM Assessee by : Shri Kishore Phadke Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kalyani Group and Germany based Hirschvogel Group. It was submitted by the assessee that the commercial production of the company started on 1st September, 2010 i.e. in the year under consideration. The assessee s turnover during the year was ₹ 2,67,08,621/- as against this, the assessee had claimed manufacturing expenditure of ₹ 4,03,66,841/- and therefore, gross loss was shown at Rs.(-)1,36,58,220/- i.e. -269.68% of the sales. Similarly, the ratio of cost of material consumed to sales was also very high i.e. 97%. 4. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that there was a glaring difference in the manufacturing expenses to sales ratio for the two comparative assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y.2012-13. For assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verage cost of material consumed for subsequent 3 years and the gross profit was taken at 54%. Therefore, gross profit was recomputed at ₹ 1,44,22,655/- as against the gross loss claimed in the return of income at ₹ 1,36,58,220/-. Thus, the differential amount of ₹ 2,80,80,875/- was added back to the total income of the assessee and reduced from the loss claimed to be carried forward. 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), at Page 12, Para 5.3, Note No.2, the assessee vide its submission has explained the provision entry in consumables amounting to ₹ 53,15,000/-. 8. We find that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not given any specific findings regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
