TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer on account of unaccounted investment and unaccounted profit out of unaccounted production even when the variation of consumption of electricity was more than 15%. More so, this action of the Ld. CIT(A) is uncalled for being contrary to the observations of different courts that every year is an independent assessment year. 2. It is prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of Assessing officer restored. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and finally disposed of. 3. The brief facts relating to the issue under consideration are that the assessee company is engaged in manufactur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f finished goods. He, therefore, observed that it indicated that the daily production recorded by the assessee of the finished goods was not correct and, hence, not reliable. He observed that the data relating to the daily production had not been maintained as per actual production. When confronted in this respect, the assessee explained that the consumption of electricity was dependent on various factors as detailed in his reply which has been reproduced by the Assessing officer in the assessment order. The Assessing officer, however, was not satisfied with the above reply of the assessee. He ultimately held that the assessee company was involved in unaccounted production of finished goods which resulted in unaccounted sales and purchases.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng assessment in similar cases and has accepted the book results if the variation is within 15% window. It was, therefore, pleaded that the book results of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 should also be accepted and consequently, the addition should be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) got verified from the Assessing officer the above contentions of the assessee which was reported to be correct by the Assessing officer. The Ld. CIT(A) thereafter held that once an issue has been decided on merits in a subsequent year, it would not be appropriate to take a different view for the year under consideration. He, therefore, relying upon the report of the Committee constituted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala held that as dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 1.8.2017 - ITA No. 912/Chd/2017 (Chandigarh Bench) 8. We have heard the rival contentions. We find force in the contention of the Ld. AR. The issue is squarely covered by the above referred to decision of the Tribunal in the case of 'ITO vs Shri Harpreet Singh'(supra), wherein, while dismissing the identical appeals of the Revenue, the Tribunal has observed as under:- "7. .......... the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the above appeals in favour of the assessee has already followed the internal guidelines of the committee constituted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. That the Committee so constituted was a Broad based Multi Member body having Additional Commissioner of income Tax, Mandi Gobindgarh as its H....