2021 (10) TMI 1059

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The appeal was admitted by this Court to consider the following substantial questions of law. "i. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the estimate made by the assessing officer while determining the income on mining activity when the appellant had provided adequate explanation with evidence for the increase in expenditure of re-screening charges in the course of extraction of iron ore and also the over all gross profit increase and also compared with the production results of the succeeding year? ii. Whether the Tribunal was justified in disturbing the profit when no defect in accounts was found and the accounts were audited and when the report under Section 44AB of the Act was furnished and whe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed by the assessee, partly allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred this appeal raising the substantial questions of law as aforesaid. 7. Learned counsel Smt.Jinita Chatterjee appearing for the assessee strongly contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the total cost of purchases which includes basic cost and cost of rescreening charges which cannot be considered in isolation since they are intrinsically related. The Assessing Officer has considered Rs. 200/- as cost of re-screening charges whereas the assessee had incurred Rs. 325/- per M.T, since poor quality of iron ore was purchased by the assessee during the Assessment year in question. It is obvious that to b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at Rs. 200/- per M.T., notwithstanding such expenses claimed at Rs. 38/- in the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs. 35/- in the assessment year 2010-11. The same is based on the material evidence. The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] ought not have further granted the relief on imaginary basis. The Tribunal having examined these aspects, more particularly, the invoices furnished by the assessee, has given a finding that there is low quality materials as well as good quality material, both purchased by the assessee in the assessment year in question and accordingly considering these aspects has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee allowing the appeal of the Revenue. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. We have careful....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A perusal of the said invoices, however, shows that higher grade material was also purchased by the assessee during the year under consideration and there was not much difference in the rates of the so-called low grade aterial and high grade material, as reflected in the said invoices. Moreover, the relevant quantitative details are also not placed on record before us by the ld. Counsel for the assessee to show that the proportion of low grade material purchased during the year under consideration was substantially higher that of the immediately preceding and succeeding years. In any case, we find that the extraction/rescreening charges were paid by the assessee @ Rs. 38 and Rs. 55 m.t. in the A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 respectively and the ....