TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 60,55,210/- rightly made by the Assessing Officer on account of production of Baggase & its sale without accounting for in the books of accounts and treating it as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources, as the assessee failed to produce any evidence during the course of assessment proceedings." 3. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order. He also submitted that on page No. 2 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted a comparable case also and therefore, the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer should be restored. Learned AR of the assessee supported the order of CIT (A). 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this issue was decided by CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer has referred to a case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill, Powanya for assessment year 92-93 whereas in the present case, the assessment year involved is 2007-08. The yield of main product or byproduct is not constant in each and every case and every year. It is dependable on so many factors and therefore, merely on this basis that in the case of one assessee in one particular year, higher yield was recorded and that should be considered as yield of baggasse for all the assessees in all the years, is not correct. There is no other reason given by the Assessing Officer for doubting the yield of baggasse reported by the assessee in the Tax Audit Report. In our considered opinion, on the basis of a single case of a different assessee for one ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng by Excise Department and also in the absence of any material brought on record by the Assessing Officer indicating sugar production suppression, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue also. Ground No. 2 is also rejected. 8. Ground No. 3 of the Revenue's appeal, reads as under: "(3) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,44,09,510/- under section 43 B of the I.T.Act,1961." 9. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also drawn our attention to page No. 83 of the paper book containing the Annexure to Tax Audit Report in which the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding balance of purchase tax of Rs. 124.86 lac. When we examine the details available on page No. 4 of the assessment order and page 83 of the paper book, we find that the amount of cess is same i.e. Rs. 70,13,524/- at the beginning and end of the year. When this amount was outstanding on the first day of the accounting year, no addition is called for in the present year although the assessee would have been eligible for deduction if any payment would have been made by him in the present year. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not on scientific basis. Since the order of CIT(A) is cryptic, we feel it proper that this matter should go to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh decision by way of passing speaking and reasoned o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upported the assessment order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 16. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that on this issue also, the order of CIT(A) is very cryptic. This issue was decided by him by making following observations: "I have considered the issue. The method of valuation of closing stock of free sugar at cost price or market price whichever is lower, has been followed during the year by the appellant without any change and the same method has always been accepted by the department in the past years also. As such the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted." 17. There is no finding given by CIT(A) regarding the main objection of the Assessing Officer that....