TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1018
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the statistical purpose. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a jointsector company established with financial collaboration of Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation, a Government company, for setting up a Soda Ash Project in the backward area of village Sutrapada, near Veraval, Gujarat. For setting up the plant, the assesseecompany entered into agreement with techinical collaboration of a Netherland company. The commercial production started in assessment year 1989-90. The total cost of the project is approximately Rs. 287 Crores. There were search and seizure proceedings at Delhi office on 15.03.1990 and on the same date, a survey was conducted at Ahmedabad office and other branch offices. The first ground of dispute ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck of/salt is arrived by Volumetrically measuring the heap multiplied by the bulk density. The volume of the heap is calculated based on the mathematically formula applicable to the particular geometrical shape. The assessment of loss of salt is arrived by the difference between the measurement of heap before and after the monsoon." 4. He has also pointed out towards Survey dated 12.12.1988, the method and the procedure adopted by the industry. He contended that the average loss for the previous year which were placed on record in the paper book. He pointed out that in the year 1988-89, the average loss of the assessee was around 6.66%. The table showing the details for the Assessment Years 1988-99 to 1994-95. Asst. Years Amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (overall) 6.80% 9.47% 6.65% ----------- 7.31% 1993-94 32.47 Total production 723806 MT 5% considered reasonable and the balance 31747 MT added at Rs. 102 per MT i.e. Rs. 32.47 lacs 1994-95 17.82 Total production 396311 MT 5% considered reasonable and the balance 16975 MT added at Rs. 105 per MT i.e. Rs. 17.82 lacs He has further contended that the loss for the year in question was actually on the basis of _____________. He further contended that the authority failed to appreciate the factors which were pointed out viz. Rain, total density of rain fall etc. and therefore he contended that not allowing the loss as claimed is contrary to evidence on record and which leads the industr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The difference of 3.56% is disallowed. In metric tonnes, the difference comes to 6431 MT and at the rate of Rs. 100/- per metric tonne, the disallowance comes to Rs. 6,43,100/- which is upheld. The assessee gets a relief of Rs. 10,73,800/- minus Rs. 6,43,1004,30,700/- ." Mr. Bhatt has further relied on the order dated 17.04.2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, particularly on para 23 and 24 of the said order dated. These relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below: "23.We have considered the rival submissions of the parties, perused the record. The assessee submitted additional evidence. Having heard both sides, we f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be calculated but quantity can certainly be calculated. It has been found that if any such exercise is done by the assessee, the relevant record of such exercise, calculation neither produced before the lower authorities nor before us. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the loss shown by the assessee is supported by a cogent documentary evidence. In the absence of such supporting material we are of the view that loss is to be estimated. Now question arose is what should be the reasonable estimation of loss. For this purpose the AO is to adopt some reasonable basis. He has taken the basis of loss declared by the assessee itself on different sites which is 8.74% for Port Victor, 5.18% for Jafrabad site and 3.65% for Una site. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eason i.e. in October or November, this fact supports the order of the CIT(A) where he found that in this site Port Victor the assessee has claimed excess loss." 5. We have heard Mr.Soparkar and Mr.Bhatt. Taking into consideration the loss of the previous i.e. 5% loss, which has been accepted by the CIT(A). But, the Tribunal currently came to the conclusion that the assessee did not even try to discharge its onus. As it was also evident from the observations made by the Assessing Officer at page No.19 and 20 of his order. The law of evidence mandate that if the best evidence is not placed before the Court, an adverse inference can be drawn as against the person who ought to have produced. The Tribunal has rightly noted in its order that ....