TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s common order for the sake of convenience. The effective grounds of both appeals are as under: Grounds of ITA No. 1387/Ahd/2010 (Quantum appeal) "I. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.58,52,840/- made by Assessing Officer on account of entire job charges on alleged clearance of 836120 Mts. Of Man made processed fabrics worked out by the central excise authorities during the search proceedings on 24.10.2002 without appreciating the facts of affidavit filed before Executive Magistrate on 28.10.2002 for retraction of statement & appeal filed against the order of Central Excise authorities on the basis of which no addition is called for. The addition of Rs.58,52....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Processed) valued at Rs.2,25,75,240/- @ Rs.27 per metre illicitly without payment of Central Excise Duty, without issue of Central Excise Invoice and without entering/accounting for the said quantity of processed manmade fabrics in their records, to the concerned parties during the period from May,2002 to October, 2002. Shri Gulshan Manoharlal Bhatia, the Director of the company stated in his statement before Excise Authority on 24/25.10.2002, as per Panchnama drawn by them, that the company had received the payment of job charges for such illicitly cleared/removed processed manmade fabrics in cash from the respective concerned parties and not kept any record of the said clearance/removal and payment of job charges. The A.O. reopened the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he course of action whereby its director, Mr. Bhata, gave a statement agreeing to have removed the said fabric without entering in the excise records and without entering into the books of account. Later on it seems this statement was retracted. However, no evidence or documents have been given to show that the quantity actually tallied and there was no mistake in the shortage of stock and hence the statement given was wrong. The retraction of the statement is, therefore, not based on any documentary evidence. Hence this retraction cannot be accepted. Having said that it is seen that the A.O. had agreed that the assessee has only doing job work and not processing the goods, hence job work income has escaped assessment. The decisions relied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count @ 23% which has accepted by the ITAT. 4(i). At the outset, ld. Sr. D.R. argued that A.O. as well as CIT(A) has held that the assessee has already debited all the expenses on processing charges, the appellant had not produced any evidence that it has incurred expenditure separately . Thus, the service charged calculated by the A.O. may be confirmed. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. During the course of hearing, when ld. A.R. specifically asked to clarify whether page no. 17 of paper book had been submitted before the A.O. at the time of assessment or not. He admitted that this argument of page no. 17 of paper book was submitted before the A.O. at the time of assessment. The same is reprod....