TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 916
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is being disposed of after hearing the learned DR and after considering the written submissions filed by the assessee-respondent. 3. The ground no.1 of the appeal of the Revenue is as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,85,249/- made on account of suppressed production as the fact that the wages paid are not proportionate to the production made in the month of February, 2008 in comparison to other months." 4. The learned DR has relied on the order of the AO. He referred to relevant paras of the assessment order in support of the case of the Revenue. He submitted that the wages paid were not proportionate to the production made in the month of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, may be a good reason to provoke inquiry in this regard, but itself is not sufficient to make any addition/disallowance. In these facts, we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the basis taken by the AO is misplaced and the books of accounts produced by the assessee are not rejected by the AO. No arithmetic formula to co-relate the wages with the production and estimate the suppression on account of variation in wages, is sustainable. In these view of the matter, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the ground no.1 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 7. The ground no.2 of the Revenue's appeal is as under: "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A), has erred in deleting the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....defect therein. The job work charges were received by the assessee almost entirely in cheque. The assessee submitted that the method of accounting had been consistently followed year after year, and there is no case for disallowance made by the AO. 10. We have considered the submissions of learned DR and have perused the written submissions filed by the assessee, and orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that the only reason advanced by the AO to make disallowance is that, there is no fixed criterion for providing benefit to the customers in the form of discount/rate difference/ claim etc. and it may differ person to person. We find that the reasoning of the AO to make the disallowance is not sustainable in law. The assessee is the best....