TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g grounds of appeal :- 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the alleged suppression of production of Rs. 1,65,53,281/- 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in confirming the alleged suppression of production merely on basis of the Show Cause notice received from Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad for A.Y. 2008 - 09 and A.Y. 2009 -10 and order of Customs, Excise and Service tax tribunal, West Zonal, Mumbai dated 01-03-2011. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in confirming the alleged suppression of sales merely on the basis of action of Directorate General of Central Excise and Customs, for which the assessee had paid all taxes during the assessment of income for Assessment Year 2007-08. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in confirming the alleged suppression of production merely on basis of monthly variations in consumption of electricity vis a vis production. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in confirming suppression of sales of Rs. 1,65,53,281/- on the basis of the show cause notice received from Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad wherein they have relied on the consumption of electri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relying on the decision rendered by Hon'ble C E & S Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai which has never reached to finality and still premature? (2) Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee has correctly pointed out that variation of electricity is on account of use of different quality of raw material and irregular supply of power when in fact there is no use of different quality of raw material and express feeder is available with the assessee which provides power without any interruption? (3) Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the correct facts of the case in respect of determination of electricity consumption and granted the relief on wrong appreciation of facts? (4) The order of the AO be restored and that of the CIT(A) be vacated. 6. The assessee and the Revenue are in cross appeals before us relating to assessment year 2010-11 and the Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) relating to assessment year 2011-12. 7. The issue arising in all these three appeals is similar and we proceed to decide the present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of assessee was estimated. The assessee was thus, asked to explain as to why during the year under consideration also the production should not be estimated on the basis of electricity unit consumption @ 188 units per MT. In response, the assessee contended that they had already furnished their explanation in the earlier assessment year which may be considered. The Assessing Officer further considering the said information and after going through various evidences relied upon by the Assessing Officer in the earlier years and information collected by the DGCEI and the statements recorded on 12.01.2007 by the DGCEI and the additional income offered by the assessee in the earlier years, the books of account of assessee were rejected and the suppressed production was estimated on the basis of adoption of consumption of 188 KWh/MT to be at 26787 MT. Since all the manufacturing and administrative expenses including electricity charges had already been paid, the Assessing Officer allowed deduction to the assessee company only to the extent of cost of raw material used for production which worked out to 22707 per MT. The Assessing Officer further noted that average sale price of commodi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were different to some extent. In the said cases, clandestine removal of goods by the appellant and the admission of the appellant about the said fact of unaccounted transactions was not before the Hon'ble ITAT. Further, the detailed order of the Commissioner of Excise and the other facts brought on record by the A.O. in the assessment order was not before the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune while deciding the above referred cases. Further in the said cases action u/s 132 was conducted and the appellant was assessed u/s 153A of the Act and hence addition in respect of completed assessments in such cases could be made only on the basis of material found in search action. In view.of the above facts, the reliance placed by the appellant on the above referred decision is misplaced. Further, the other decisions relied on by the appellant in support of its above contention are also distinguishable on facts as in the said cases the clandestine removal of goods was not proved and admitted as in the case of the appellant. Further, the reasons for estimating the production on the basis of electricity units consumed were not present in the said cases. (6) The appellant has not maintained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot raise a valid plea of limitation either. Suppression of relevant facts is inbuilt in clandestine production of Excisable goods and its removal without payment of duty, and the same, primafacie, stands established in these cases." 7.3 In view of the facts of the case and above mentioned reasons mentioned by the A.O. and respectfully considering observations in the decision of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench order dated 01/03/2011 in the case of the appellant and others, I hold that there is suppression of sale and profit in the years under appeal and hence the profit declared by the appellant cannot be accepted without making further addition on account of profit on suppressed sale." 12. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The identical issue of estimation of income in the hands of assessee on account of alleged suppression of production on account of variation in consumption of electricity arose vide bunch of appeals decided by the Tribunal of both furnace cases and Re- Rolling Mills. The Tribunal in the case of Re-Rolling....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in relation to suppression of production on account of erratic consumption of electricity. The assessee filed an appeal against the said order of CCE, Aurangabad before the CESTAT and the Third Member of CESTAT deleted the addition made in the hands of respective furnace cases. However, in the case of the assessee before us, there is no order of CCE, Aurangabad and there is no order of CESTAT. In some of the years, the owners of Rolling Mills on the basis of certain information gathered by the DGCEI had moved a petition before the Settlement Commission and offered additional income, which was accepted by the Settlement Commission in entirety. In some cases, such offer of additional income was before the Excise authorities, who in turn, accepted the same. The Assessing Officer in the case of Rolling Mills i.e. in the hands of the assessee before us was of the view that because of erratic consumption of electricity, in turn, relying on the data of consumption of electricity as per US standards, came to the conclusion that there was suppression of production by the TMT Bars manufacturers in Jalna cluster on the ground of variance in consumption of electricity versus production. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and circumstances of this case whether the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs. 39,20,36,546/- in the A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 40,75,72,486/- in the A.Y. 2008 -09 on alleged suppression of production/sales and; (ii) Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the books of account of the assessee does not give the correct picture of the state of affairs and hence, those books of account needs to be rejected." 57. After considering the submissions of the assessee in paras 10 to 10.5 at pages 12 to 16 and also summarizing the submissions of the Ld. Special AR in paras 11 to 11.6 at pag es 16 to 22 and the rejoinder of the assessee in paras 12 to 12.1 at pages 22 to 24 of the order, the Tribunal observed as under: - "13. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. Ld. AR for the assessee filed argument synopsis and Ld. Spl. AR for the Revenue also has filed notes of his argument on 05-11-2014 which are placed on record. We have also considered all the precedents and decisions relied on by both the Parties. The assessee is manufacturer of Ingots/Billets. So far as A.Y. 2007 -08 is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee has suppressed the production as compared to the consumption of the electricity. No excess stock of finished goods was also found. We also put on record that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer in consequence of search and seizure action against the assessee u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) have reached the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. We will later refer to the decision of the Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court and certain important observations made in respect of the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. It is also to be taken note that the A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 before us are immediately next assessment years after the assessments in consequence of search and seizure action u/s. 132(1) of the Act were completed. 15. It is also to be taken note of the fact that even for the A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09, no independent investigation or any enquiry is made by the Assessing Officer or any other Income Tax Authorities. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer has placed his reliance only on the information received from the Central Excise Authorities and the proceeding before the Settlement Commission of Central Excise & Custom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring the goods without payment of excise duty. The declaration filed by the assessee was accepted without any further addition or objection filed by the Central Excise Authorities. The Settlement Commission levied the penalty of Rs. 8,000/-. 16. The Assessing Officer also has in detail discussed the process involved in the manufacturing of Ingots as well as Billets in the assessment order. At this stage we are not concerned with the said discussion which is in Para No. 4.1 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer in his discussion for arriving at the conclusion that as compared to the consumption of the electricity shown by the assessee the production was much more lower, has given the examples or reference of some other manufacturers against whom action taken by the Central Excise authorities. As observed by the Assessing Officer as per an article written by Shri R.P. Varshney, Executive Director, All India Induction Furnaces Association, New Delhi on "Electric Steel Making technology in the 21st Century" which is available on the internet which is on the Electric Induction Furnace and as per the said article the power consumption in Induction Furnace is between 65....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r for the purpose of levy of excise duty adopting statistic of power consumption. In the computation for the A.Y. 2008-09 the Assessing Officer made the mistakes by mentioning Rs. (-) 1,91,62,000/- as per the order u/s. 143(3) when in fact the said figure is as per the return of income filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2008 -09." 58. After analyzing the submissions of the assessee, the Tribunal noted that in both the years before it, the Assessing Officer had determined the alleged suppression of production / sales as determined by the CCE, Aurangabad on the basis of erratic consumption of electricity. The basis of the order of CCE, Aurangabad was the report of Dr. N.K. Batra, Professor of IIT, Kanpur. The Third Member of CESTAT in group of cases of furnace owners held that the order of CCE, Aurangabad was not sustainable and had to be cancelled in turn, relying on the ratio laid down in R.A. Casting (supra). The relevant finding of the Tribunal in turn, incorporating the order of Third Member of CESTAT in paras 19 to 19.4, which read as under:- "19. In sum and substance in both the assessment years the Assessing Officer has determined alleged suppression of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve the data of production from April, 2003 to March, 2008 in his order. He has also recorded the objections of the assessee company. It appears that the assesse demanded the cross examination of Dr. N.K. Batra, Professor of IIT, Kanpur which opinion was heavily relied on by the CCE, Aurangabad. The Ld. Commissioner observed that the said Dr. N.K. Batra was no more and hence, his cross examination was not possible. He has also discussed and referred to the different decisions of the Tribunal. The Ld. Commissioner also relied on the investigation made by the DGCEI and show cause notice issued to the assessee and how the assessee approached the Settlement Commission and admitted the evasion and paid the excise duty and obtained immunity from criminal proceedings. The Ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand raised in the show cause notice and also levied the penalty to the extent of Rs. 33,07,22,069/-. 19.2 The said order of the Ld. Commissioner was challenged before the CESTAT by filing the appeal u/s. 35B(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There was a difference of the opinion between the Ld. Members of the CESTAT, i.e. Ld. Vice -President and Ld. Technical Member and the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and another Letter dated 5.4.2008 of Electrotherm agreeing-., with .the views of Induction Furnace "Association and informing that it is very difficult to define any range of power consumption. 20.2 As against this, in para 20 of the Order, the Tribunal i n R.A. Casting (supra) considered different electricity consumption figures for production of 1 MT of MS Ingots, reported in following different reports- (i). 555 to 1046 (KWH/T) as per Dr. Batra's report; (ii). 1800 KWH/T as per the report by Joint Plant Committee constituted by the Ministry of Steel, Government of India; (iii). 1427 KWH/T as per the report of NISST, Mandi, Gobindgarh given in June-July, 2006; (iv). 650 units to 820 units/MT as per the Executive Director, All India Induction Furnace Associ ation, New Delhi (Mr. Varshney); (v). 851 units/MT in the case of Nagpal Steel v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2000 (125) E.LT. 1147, 20.3 After perusal of these reports, Tribunal opined that wide variations in the consumption electricity have been reported for the manufacture of one MT of steel ingot&, and that this renders the norm of 1046 units adopted by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lating to the above points, with further finding that the Revenue, not having conducted any experiment whatsoever, cannot be permitted to justify the demands .raised. Similar is the fact situation in the instant appeals, 20.5 The evidence as per Revenue in the instant appeals area). High electricity consumption without any explanation, b). Sale of Ingots at loss, which was economically and commercially not possible, c). Discrepancies in financial accounts in some cases and/or any proceedings under Income Tax, d). Claim of higher Auxiliary load, e). Past case settled before Settlement Commission, 20.7 So far as the proceedings already settled are concerned, the Commissioner is hot relying on the same and the findings of the Commissioner, as recorded earlier, have not been challenged by the Revenue. All these other allegations were also levelled in R.A. Casting (supra). It was further observed in R.A, Casting (supra) that it would be appropriate on the part of the Revenue to conduct experiments in the factory of the appellants and others and that too on different dates to adopt-the test results as the basis to arrive at a norm, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Department is not required to prove its case to its mathematical precision, by relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Bhoormull - 1983 (13) ELT 1546 (SC), relied upon by the Commissioner as well as the Hon'ble Member (Technical). It is seen that even this judgment was considered in R.A. Casting (supra), 21. There can be no dispute on the fact that in adjudication proceedings, the charge of clandestine removal is definitely to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. However, it cannot be merely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions, Regarding the claim of the Revenue that subsequent to passing of impugned Orders the power consumption for manufacturing one MT of Ingots has reduced in factories of all the appellants, I am of the view that it cannot be-.a" basis to sustain the findings in the impugned Orders by assuming that there could not be any reason for lower consumption of electricity during the subsequent period. I also agree with the finding of the Hon'ble Vice President that in. any event, this additional material is also only of power consumption. 22. In written submissions of Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so Hans Casting (supra). In A.K. Alloys, 2012 (275) E.L.T. 232 (Tri. - Del.) the Tribunal followed the decision of R.A. Casting (supra) and allowed the appeal, as the demand was based mainly on the evidence of power consumption without any evidence of clandestine removal. 25. I therefore concur with the findings of the Hon'ble Vice President and in my opinion, the judgment in R.A. Casting (supra) would be squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case in all the appeals. 19.4 The common order was passed by the CESTAT on 30 -07-2006 as per the majority opinion allowing the appeals filed by the assessee and other appellant companies. The copy of the majority order is placed at Page Nos. 5 and 6 of the P/B - VI. It is pertinent to note here that the Ld. Commissioner has also considered the investigation made by the DGCEI against some brokers and in consequence the show cause notices (SCN) were issued to the assessee and other companies and the assessee and other companies came forward before the Settlement Commission and paid the excise duty. Hence, the investigation of the DGCEI made against the brokers and sub-brokers referred by the Assessing Officer was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al excise violations detected by other agencies where the assessee was found to be involved. In one instance that assessee had approached the Settlement Commission, admitted the evasion offence of an identical nature and had obtained immunity from criminal proceedings. The assessee has however argued that each case has to be treated as a separate case based on its own merit and dealt with accordingly. The argument of the assessee is accepted. No reliance has been placed on evidence relied upon in central excise proceedings. The findings in this case are based only on material and evidence that have been brought on record in the instant case." 61. The Tribunal thereafter, noted another aspect of the issue that no independent investigation was made by the Revenue, but the entire assessment was framed on the basis of information received from the Central Excise Department as well as the adjudication order passed by the CCE, Aurangabad, which in turn, had been cancelled by the Third Member of CESTAT. The Tribunal thus, held that the foundation for assessment does not exist. It was also noted by the Tribunal in para 21 that the investigation by the DGCEI and proceedings before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning of Form G-7 in respect of the electricity consumption, the said issue was also before the CESTAT while deciding the fate of order of the Ld. CCE, Aurangabad. Ld. AR vehemently argued to point out how the order of the CESTAT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai is not correct. The CESTAT is a higher appellate forum under the Custom Act 1962 and Central Excise Act 1944 and we cannot sit as revisionary authority or make any observation whether that order is right or wrong. 63. The Tribunal held that CESTAT was an appellate forum under the Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1954 and the Tribunal (Income -tax) could not act as revisionary authority or make any observation whether that order was right or wrong. 64. The Tribunal further referred to search and seizure operations carried out under section 132(1) of the Act on 17.03.2006 against M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessee therein i.e. M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. had filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the order of the Tribu nal is reported in 137 TTJ (Pune) 627. The Tribunal in M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) referred to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and business premises of SRJ Peety Group, Jalna covering the premises of the assessee company as well. Prior to the search, the returns of income for the asst. yrs. 2000-01 to 2005-06 had already been filed under s. 139(1) of the Act accompanied by all requisite documents and proceeding under s. 143(1) of the Act stood completed. During the course of search no incriminating materials were found relating to aforesaid years which could have been added back in the proceedings under s. 153A. The details regarding the consumption of electricity for the production for each of the year under consideration was very well placed before the authorities below in the director's report of each year. The same has not been disputed by the Revenue. The tax audit report also contained the unit production of each year which were accepted year after year along with the returns and no query was ever raised by the Department. The following chart shows the year-wise production visa- vis electricity consumption which has been placed before the authorities below along with the returns for each year: Asst. yr. Electricity consumption Production (MT) Yearly average consumption (units) 2000-01 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmula on the basis of electricity consumption that was applied uniformly in order to work out certain production and resultant concealed income for each year under consideration. The AO could not substitute the same by cogent reasoning. He has simply taken the lowest electricity consumption for a month in the whole year and treated the production in that month as the correct production and then proceeded to arrive at his production figure by multiplying the production in the books by the ratio of production to the electricity consumption for the month in which electricity consumption was minimum. The method of computing the so-called suppressed production is not justified in absence of sound basis for same. 36. The consumption of the electricity for the manufacture of mild steel ingots/billets depends on various factors like quality of raw material which is the major input, voltage of the supply, power interruptions, mechanical and electrical breakdowns and the chemical composition of the liquid metal which has to be finally cast into ingots/billets. The AO failed to appreciate these facts and did not attempt to establish a direct nexus between the production and electrici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the proceedings u/s. 153A. The details regarding the consumption of electricity for the production for each of the year under consideration was placed before the Authorities in the Director's Report of each year. The same has not been disputed by the Revenue. The Tax Audit Report also contains the unit production of each year, which was accepted year after year along with returns and no query was raised by the Revenue. The finding of fact dated 31/03/2008 in the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal refers to a detailed chart. The matter of fluctuating electricity, therefore, was held to be one, and since details were made available to the Department, which could have been raised during the course of regular assessment and not u/s. 153A of the Act. The finding is that nothing incriminating was found in the course of search relating to these assessment years. The additions, therefore, were not corresponding to the seized material during the course of search. The relevant income tax returns, in normal course, are disclosing the particulars. They were already on record. The returns have been accepted. In such circumstances, the Tribunal, as also, the Commissioner of Incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and when matter reached before the Tribunal and it is held as under: 10. The assessee had filed an appeal against the order of CIT Customs & Excise, before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal with principal Bench at New Delhi (supra). The copy of the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is placed on record by the learned A.R. for the assessee. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal after considering the factual aspects of the case, the quantum of production, the consumption of electricity observed that there is nothing on record to show that high power connection supported by evidence was made on a particular date and that resulted in higher amount of production. It was further observed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal vide para 4.2 that So far as the production quantum is concerned, there is also no evidence on record to show that the authorities intervened lawfully recording the output in the presence of witness. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal held that therefore, a hypothetical case appears to have been made by Revenue in excessive exercise of its jurisdiction to the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endent evidence has been brought on record to establish that the assessee had, a) suppressed its production and; b) it made sale of its unaccounted production, outside the books of account. Upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) we dismiss the ground Nos.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue." 26. In the case of ACIT Vs. Arora Alloys Ltd. (supra) the addition was made on the basis of electricity consumption to produce 1 MT of Ingots. The confessional statement was also given by the Managing Director of the said company before the Central Excise Authorities. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal. The Revenue challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal. It was held that there was no justification to support the said addition and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. In the light of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in both the assessment years based on the order passed by the CCE, Aurangabad as well as on the basis of consumption of the electricity used in manufacturing of Ingots/Billets are not sustainable. We, accordingly, delete the additions made towards the alleged suppressi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,20,36,546/- and the said investment required for production out of books, therefore, worked out Rs. 37,69,582/-. In fact, the said addition is made by the Ld. CIT(A) as he has confirmed the alleged suppression of production/sales as held by the Assessing Officer. As the assessee has succeeded in getting the relief by deleting the entire additions towards alleged suppression of production and sales, hence, this addition does not survive and said addition is also deleted. We, accordingly, allow the Ground No. 10 taken by the assessee." 67. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal of the Revenue against the estimation of gross profit by the CIT(A) observing as under:- "31. We have heard the parties. The main grievance of the Revenue is against the estimation of GP by Ld. CIT(A). We have already allowed the grounds taken by the assessee on the alleged suppression of the production/sales. As the assessee has succeeded on the basic additions, the grounds taken by the Revenue do not survive as the entire additions are deleted in both the assessment years by allowing the grounds taken by the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds of the Revenue in both appeals are dismiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the course of hearing of the bunch of appeals was that it had moved Miscellaneous Application against the order of Tribunal dated 16.01.2015 and the hearing of the present appeals be kept in abeyance. After hearing the appeals in the present bunch of appeals, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue in M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was also fixed for hearing and the same was heard on 19.06.2015. We have by an order of even date dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue in M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) after considering the submissions of both the Authorized Representatives. We have by an order of even date held that there is no merit in the said Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue and no remedy is available to the Revenue under section 254(2) of the Act. In view thereof, the next objection of the Ld. Special AR for not relying on the order of M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) also stands dismissed. 71. Further, the Tribunal in the case of ano ther Rolling Mills i.e. Mahaveer Steel Re-Rolling Mills Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1072 to 1076/PN/2012 and ACIT Vs. Mahaveer Steel Re-Rolling Mills in ITA Nos.1446 to 1450....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of the said clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty, is to be added in the hands of the assessee. All this information was available before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, but no other investigation or inquiry was made by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer on the other hand, was of the view that the assessee had not correctly disclosed the production of TMT Bars. The basis for such assumption was the electricity consumption, for which the Assessing Officer placed reliance on the results of electricity consumption under US standards against which, handicap of 25% was given. The Assessing Officer applying the formula worked out the suppressed production and sales in the hands of the assessee. We in the paras hereinabove have already adjudicated the issue that no addition on account of suppressed production / sales on account of such formula could be made in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. Special AR on the other hand, stressed that where the Assessing Officer had the information of alleged clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut payment of Excise duty or suppressed sales for the balance period, in the absence of any evidence found against the assessee for the balance period. 74. Another aspect of the issue is that though the factum of the assessee filing the petition before the Settlement Commission, was before the Assessing Officer, even additional income on such offer of settlement was offered by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, however, no further inquiry, investigation or action was taken by Assessing Officer in this regard. In the absence of the same, the issue raised in the present appeal is whether any extrapolation of sales for the balance year on the basis of evidence found for the part of the year is justified or not. The answer, in our opinion, has to be in negative. 75. The Ld. Special AR vehemently relied on the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in assessee's own case reported in 137 TTJ (Pune) 627, which in turn has been approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. It may be pointed out that the facts of the case before the Tribunal in assessment year 2006-07 are at variance. The addition in the hands of the assessee was made on the basis of search and seizure actio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Department pursuant to search and seizure action, which indicated clearance in sales, on the basis of which the additional income was added in the hands of the assessee. The said information was forwarded to the Central Excise Department pursuant to which, order levying additional Excise duty was passed by the Excise Commissioner. However, the Tribunal cancelled the Excise demand on the ground that there was no corroborative evidence of clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty was found from the possession of the assessee by the Excise authorities. 77. Following the same analogy of reasoning, where the evidence of clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty has been found by the Excise Department, in respect of sale of goods for a particular quantity and for a particular period, the same could not be relied upon as evidence, while extrapolating the sales and the additional income thereon in the hands of the assessee during the Incometax proceedings. The Assessing Officer does not have any evidence for suppressed production and even after the order of Settlement Commission, the Assessing Officer had not investigated or brought any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o inference could be drawn against the assessee for extrapolating the same for full year and for the balance year and in other years, other than the year in which the said settlement was offered. In this regard, we find support from the ratio laid down by the Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in Anjaneya Brick Works vs. CIT (supra), wherein it has been held that mere existence of evidence of concealment in the next assessment year could not be the basis for estimating income in any other assessment years. 82. Further, before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar (supra), the issue was in relation to the evidence found of unaccounted sales for part of the period during the course of search. The Assessing Officer on the said basis assumed unaccounted sales during the entire year, which was deleted by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that assumption of Assessing Officer may have perhaps been valid if the search had been conducted after the accounting year and the books of account had brought some discrepancy. 83. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. C.J. Shah and Co. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scellaneous Application. However, in the interest of justice, the said issue of extrapolation of suppressed sales was adjudicated by the Tribunal by observing as under:- "41. Before closing the issue, in the interest of justice, we would like to adjudicate the issue of extrapolation of suppressed sales on account of settlement petition made by the assessee. Admittedly, during the course of search and seizure operation on certain brokers, evidences of clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty, was found against the assessee. However, no search and seizure operation was carried out against the assessee, but the assessee claims that in order to buy peace of mind, it had declared the said amount by way of petition before the Settlement Commission. The said offer made by the assessee was accepted in toto. It may be noted that the Excise authorities have the power to re-visit the offer made by the assessee, in case, any adverse material is available against the person making the offer. It may also be noted that the Settlement accepted in the hands of the assessee is for the financial year and is not restricted to the number of days for which it has offered. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year 2007-08 only and no such petition for clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty has been made for assessment year 2008-09. The assessee had offered the additional income on account of such clandestine removal of goods before the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2007-08 and the same was the reason for reopening the assessment under section 148 of the Act. Once a particular fact was available with the Assessing Officer, which was taken note of and considered by him during the assessment proceedings, but the addition having been made on only on the issue of erratic consumption of electricity, which is the basis of order passed by CCE, Aurangabad, who was also in knowledge of the clandestine removal of material and the investigation carried out by the DGCEI and the petition before the Settlement Commission, even the Third Member of CESTAT was aware of all these proceedings, but since the settlement petition filed by the assessee had been accepted in toto by the Settlement Commission, no further addition could be made in the hands of the assessee on this ground, in the absence of any inquiry or investigation by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respective years and include the additional income on account of such admitted clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty, by the assessee either before the Settlement Commission or before the Excise authorities, in the hands of the assessee. We have heard bunch of appeals and in some years, there is no admission of clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty and in those years in the absence of any evidence and / or any investigation or inquiry made by the Assessing Officer and where the Assessing Officer has failed to collect additional evidence, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee, by way of extrapolation of sales for 300 days on account of any evidence found in any preceding or succeeding years. Further, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee, where no petition has been filed by the assessee before the Settlement Commission in any of the respective years or before the Excise authorities. 89. Since we have deleted the addition in the hands of assessee on both accounts i.e. addition made on account of erratic consumption of electricity and addition proposed on the basis of evidence found for the part ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the Assessing Officer in order to compute the additional income in the hands of assessee in the respective years." 15. The issue arising before us identical to the issue before the Tribunal in Shree Om Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (supra). Further, during the year under consideration, neither investigation by the DGCEI nor any suppressed production has been detected and admitted by the assessee. Further, the assessee has not moved any petition before the Settlement Commission or any other Excise authorities. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances and in the absence of any evidence collected by the Assessing Officer of alleged removal of goods without payment of Excise duty, merely on the basis of estimation of alleged suppressed production in the earlier years i.e. relating to assessment years 2006- 07 and 2007-08, there is no merit in making any addition in the hands of assessee. Further, the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 vide order dated 15.07.2015 with lead order in Shree Om Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (supra) has deleted the addition made in the hands of assessee on account of alleged suppres....