2020 (4) TMI 860

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No.22/Ind/2007 in respect of the Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 05.01.2016 on the following two substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in upholding the quashing of reassessment proceedings on the ground that the reason recorded by the AO regarding escapement of income were reasons to suspect and not reasons to believe?" 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in law in not upholding the addition of Rs. 1,62,42,450/- on account of suppressed sales even when the addition was based on the norms prescribed by the Technical Excise Manual of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been dismissed vide order impugned herein. In this manner, the present appeal has been filed by the Revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer had reopened the case with the reason that as per the technical excise manual of Kerala some specified percentage of consumption of sugar and malt are consumed for production of same specified percentage of Beer but the assessee had not shown the said ratio of yield. According to him, on the basis of the Technical Excise Manual of Excise Department, 4672.9 BL of Beer is produced from one MT of Barley Malt and similarly as per Excise Technical rules framed by the Kerala State, 5857.14 BL worth is produced out of one MT of sugar. If 5% wastage is taken d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tate. On that basis, it was held that the assessee had shown production of Beer more than what is worked out on the basis of Technical Excise Rules of Kerala State which were relied upon by the Assessing Officer. It was also noticed that the Assessing Officer had reopened the case without any evidence and that too after the block assessment was over and even the regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was also completed. There was no evidence found during the course of search that there was undisclosed production. Further, no information was available with the Revenue that there was unaccounted production. The learned Tribunal concurred with the view of CIT(A) and in this view of the matter, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue ho....