9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view they had used old stock and most of the items are small things of various shapes in which case there was heavy wastage. If such stand of the assessee is not disputed by the assessing officer that the assessee had produced details including quantitative details of stock of finished leather and raw materials consumption of the same and details of production, the assessing officer was duty bound to examine those details and documents and come to a conclusion. However, those details have been brushed aside and what derived in the mind of the assessing officer were the figures for the three earlier assessment years. This, in our opinion, could not have been done by the assessing officer ignoring the materials and documents produced by the assessee about assessment year under consideration. CIT(A) also committed a similar error in not adverting to the records which are germane to the assessment year under consideration and largely swayed by the opinion of the assessing officer who committed an error by determining the quantity of wastage based on the production figures for the previous year. There is nothing on record to indicate that there was suppression of materials b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as the CIT(A) and the learned tribunal. Once again, the two authorities and the tribunal state that there was nothing on record. Documents clearly show the details of repairs and maintenance have been clearly listed before the CIT(A) and, thus, if the facts relevant for the assessment year under consideration had been considered, such an error would not have occurred. In fact, the learned tribunal in its order records that the assessment records as well as the records of the CIT(A) were called for. Having done so, the tribunal does not record any finding on such records and details and documents produced by the assessee at the very inception during the course of scrutiny assessment. It proceeds to say that there is no evidence before the authorities below. This finding is factually incorrect and should be termed to be a perverse finding. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal committed an error in affirming the order passed by the CIT(A). In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee. - Hon ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Hon ble Justice Hiranm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for scrutiny. The assessee produced various details including the quantitative details of stock of finished leather and raw material consumption of the same and details of production. After analysing the details and documents produced, the assessing officer was of the prima facie opinion that there is a discrepancy and irregularity in respect of consumption of finished leather and resultant production of finished goods. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 28th November, 2008 was issued to the assessee. The assessee with regard to the quantitative details of stock stated that the consumption of raw materials depends on the quality of leather items produced. Further, it was stated that during the year under review, mostly old stocks have been used, most of the items produced are of various shapes in which case there was heavy wastage. The assessing officer as could be seen from the assessment order dated 30th December, 2008 does not examine the documents and details furnished by the assessee but largely was guided by the figures relating to the leather consumption during the last three previous years starting from 2002-03 to 2003-05. Considering those details, the assessing office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments produced by the assessee about assessment year under consideration. The CIT(A) also committed a similar error in not adverting to the records which are germane to the assessment year under consideration and largely swayed by the opinion of the assessing officer who committed an error by determining the quantity of wastage based on the production figures for the previous year. There is nothing on record to indicate that there was suppression of materials by the assessee nor there is anything to indicate that the wastage as mentioned by the assessee for the year under consideration could not have been shown and those figures were neither examined nor rejected. One more important factor which needs to be taken note is that before the CIT(A) the assessee placed bunch of documents which were comparative chart of gross profits for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08. It also produced the consumption report style-wise showing particulars of consumption of different types of products. The list of different types of articles producing during the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 was also furnished along with the summary of export sales. Thus, if according to the assessee, dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
