2002 (9) TMI 795

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of the CIT(A) dated 23-2-1995. The only ground raised by the Department reads as under :- "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,47,290 made by the Assessing Officer on account of excessive shortage." 2. The relevant facts related to the issue, in brief, are t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e accounts were duly audited and no defect was found from the books of account, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in applying the proviso 2 to section 145(1) of the Act. It was submitted that wastage was lower only during the preceding assessment year whereas for the earlier four years i.e., from the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 the net shortage shown by another comparable ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I also find that the wastage shown by the appellant in earlier years was much higher and there have been vide fluctuations in the wastage claimed from year to year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in restricting the deduction on account of shortage to 5%. Addition of Rs. 5,39,290 made by the Assessing Officer is therefore, ordered to be deleted." 4. We have heard the learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ears and the Assessing Officer has accepted the said wastage. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer has not given any cogent reasons as to why 0.5% wastage was the correct one. In other words, he estimated the wastage without any basis. 4.1 Before us, it was the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that in the subsequent years i.e., assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93, the wastage cl....