TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ofit rate of 2%) out of total addition of Rs.2.53 crores (gross profit rate of 2.46%) which itself was erroneously made by the Respondent on the basis of estimation ?" 2. Briefly stated the facts are that for the assessment year 2005-06 in the case of the appellant-assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts and made various additions, in particular, on the premise of low output as compared to the electricity consumption and made matching additions. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal on this score and deleted the addition. 3. This time the Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal at one stage allowed the Revenue's appeal by an order dated October 16, 2009 and restored part of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee thereupon filed Tax Appeal No.2398 of 2009 before the High Court. The High Court remanded the matter before the Tribunal observing that the Tribunal had not given independent reasons why the CIT (Appeals) was not justified in estimation of gross profit. In the second round of hearing, the Tribunal passed the impugned order and made addition on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h year will have to be separately done on the basis of evidence on record in each year. 5.2 Coming to the question of rejection of book results and additions sustained by the Tribunal, we notice that the Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal noticed a rather irregular pattern of output by the assessee in comparison to the electricity consumption. If we record such facts which are not seriously in dispute from the order of the Tribunal, it emerges thus : "20. Be that as it may, the matter now stands restored to the file of this Tribunal. We have therefore independently examined all the relevant aspects of the case in the light of the applicable law. The assessee-firm itself filed details giving month-wise production of oil and month-wise consumption of power. They have been extracted from the assessment order and reproduced earlier in this order. The assessee is engaged in the production of groundnut oil, groundnut refined oil as well as small quantity of cotton seed oil . In the month of April, the assessee reported production of 4,91,003 kgs. of groundnut oil and 33,185 kgs of refined groundnut oil for which it reported consumption of 18,191 units of power w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for such lower production of oil as reported by the assessee in certain months qua the power consumed. He however expressed his inability to do so. All the reasons given by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) in this behalf do not satisfactorily explain the reasons for such lower production qua consumption of power in all the other months of year as compared to the month of April. There is thus no satisfactory explanation for lower production in several months of the year under appeal against power consumed. Another important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of, is the month-wise yield groundnut oil, groundnut refined oil and refined cotton seed oil. There is wide and abnormal fluctuation in the month-wise yield of groundnut oil, refined groundnut oil and cotton seed oil. There is no satisfactory explanation for such wide fluctuations. Yet another fact of significance, which has been highlighted by the ld.CIT(A) in his appellate order, is that the assessee has not recorded work-in-progress in the books of account which let the ld.CIT(A) himself to make addition of Rs.9,57,432/. We are in agreement with the observation of the CIT (A) that it is not possible to have nil work-in-progr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found acceptable. We have perused the explanation rendered by the assessee which found favour with the CIT (Appeals). The principle explanations were that the assessee was engaged in oil extraction from different oil seeds and further that Gujarat Electricity Board would issue bills for minimum contracted units, whether they were consumed or not. 5.6 Except for merely suggesting these factors, the assessee produced no further evidence. If the oil output was vastly different for different oil seeds, which was the reason for fluctuation in productivity, the assessee could have easily demonstrated from the books of accounts and other literature. Merely suggesting that the Gujarat Electricity Board would issue the bills for minimum contracted units without full consumption, is merely stating the obvious. The assessee could have pointed out from such bills that the amounts charged did not match full consumption. In fact, the Tribunal's findings are based on the consumption of units of electricity and not on the bills raised by the Gujarat Electricity Board on fixed/ committed charge basis. 5.7 The decisions cited before us rest on slightly different facts. In the case of St. Teres....