TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grounds No.2 and 3 are general in nature and do not survive for adjudication. The lone surviving ground No.1 of the appeal is reproduced herein below. "1. On the facts and I circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.61,44,189/- as against addition of Rs.1,22,88,377/- made by Assessing Officer for alleged unaccounted expenditure u/s 69 C of the I. T. Act." 3. The revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal wherein grounds No.2 and 3 are general in nature and do not survive for adjudication. The lone ground No.1 is reproduced herein below. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) after detailed examination of the facts sustained the addition of 50% of Rs.1,22,88,377/- amounting to Rs.61,44,189/- with the following observations: "I have considered the reasons given by assessing officer and also the submissions of appellant. After carefully going through the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessing officer has made the addition on account of unexplained expenditure mainly on the ground that value of WIP disclosed in books of account is substantially higher that the cost of manufacturing/total expenses recorded in the molding division. As against this, the assessee has contended that the valuation of WIP is made at the market rate and as the profit margin in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the course of assessment proceedings assessing officer observed that there are significant discrepancies in the value of WIP of incomplete mould. The WIP of incomplete mould for F. Y. 2004-05 was Rs.1,42,33,000/- i.e. 16% of the total manufacturing cost whereas in F. Y. 2005-06 is valued at Rs.2,50,00,000/-. Assessing Officer after considering that there is almost no change in manufacturing expenses and adopted WIP ratio @ 16% and worked out manufacturing cost at Rs.15,62,50,000/- for the year under consideration. During the year the manufacturing cost incurred by assessee is Rs.8,89,49,871/-. 3. In view of the above, vide letter dated 19.12.2008, assessee company was requested to show cause as to why the difference amount of Rs.6,73,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e total income of the assessee treating unaccounted expense as deemed income of the assessee u/s. 69C of the Act. 4. In the course of appellate proceedings, it is submitted that the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in making huge addition running into crores of rupees, without bringing any cogent evidence on record. The assessee is doing business of manufacturing of package drinking water, pet performs, pet bottles, moulds & moulds spares. In the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that in molding division assessee has shown WIP on account of incomplete moulds at Rs.2.50 crores. He asked assessee to give separate data pertaining to molding division which was given by assessee & the same is reproduced at pag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....showing rates adopted for valuation of different items comprising the WIP stock & it is pertinent to mention here that the rates adopted for making valuation of WIP corresponds to the sales rate of various items which has been sold in the immediately succeeding year after completion of entire manufacturing process. This fact very much establishes the contention of assessee that valuation of WIP has been made at the market rates. 6. Now if the presumption of Assessing Officer is that assessee has invested any amount outside the books of account which co-relates to the items appearing under the head of WIP, in that case it is very much imperative on his part to bring at least some material/evidence on record which indicates that assessee h....