TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of electricity consumption in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of MS Billets. The said MS Billets are mainly used by Re-Rolling Mills for manufacturing of MS Bars. The main raw materials are sponge iron and MS Scrap. During the course of hearing, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of raw materials consumption, finished goods, consumption of electricity and unit consumption per MT with its month-wise details, in response to which the assessee furnished the details which are reproduced in Page No. 6 of the assessment order. 4. After verification of the said production details the AO worked out the average month-wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ases of M/s. Nilesh Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Bhagyalaxmi Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Considering the same, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of suppressed production. 5. The ld. DR, Shri Deepak Garg relied on the order of AO. 6. The ld. AR, Shri S.N. Puranik referred to an order dated 19-09-2019 passed by this Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA No. 1434/PUN/2018 at Page No. 3 of the paper book and argued that the AO without having any supporting material for estimating the gross profit, and the addition made thereon on account of suppressed production is bad under law. He relied on the order of ITAT in assessee‟s own case and referred to Para No. 7. We note that the AO considered the manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ween the production and electricity consumed for the manufacturing and arrived at a conclusion that there was an excess consumption of electricity resulting in suppressed production, in our opinion, has no basis for computing alleged suppressed production on estimation. 7. Further, in assessee‟s own case as relied by the ld. AR at Page No. 3 of the paper book we note that this Tribunal in Revenue‟s appeal held the order of CIT(A) is fair and reasonable on the issue where the AO proceeded to estimate the net profit on alleged suppressed production. The relevant portion in Para Nos. 7 to 9 in ITA No. 1434/PUN/2018 is reproduced herein- below : "7. We heard both the sides on this issue and perused the facts and orders of the rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Accordingly the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. Reverting back to the present case, the Assessing Officer had made the addition of Rs. 4,38,86,292/- on the basis of wrong presumption/assumptions. I find it quite baffling that the A.O. had levelled the allegation of unrecorded sales against the appellant company on the basis of some mathematical exercise without any corroborative evidence on record. This allegation of the A.O. has remained unsubstantiated and it is nothing more than a sweeping statement. The production of the assessee company is liable to Central Excise Duty and hence, the assessee has also maintained records and register as prescribed under Central Excise Act. Considering the judicial ratios, it is clear that no addit....