2021 (8) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and circumstances of the case in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 2,80,80,875/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of high material consumption declared by the assessee, even though the assessee company failed to justify its contention that corroborative and cogent evidences. 3. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the AO be restored. 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal." 2. The solitary grievance o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n at Rs. 2,67,08,621/-. Thus, the percentage of manufacturing expenses to sales was 69.39% for the assessment year 2012-13 whereas for the assessment year 2011-12, it was 151%. 5. The assessee thereafter, made detailed written submissions before the Assessing Officer which are at Para 8.1 and 8.2 of the Assessing Officer's order. The Assessing Officer vide Para 9 of his order, had observed that the comparative information even after ignoring direct manufacturing cost, was still 97%. That at Para 9.1 of the Assessing Officer's order, the assessee in its submission has stated that there was an error in making excess provision of Rs. 53,15,000/-. The cost of purchase of fixed assets in the subsequent year were provided by the assessee as co....