AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition made by way of firstly on adhoc and estimated basis only. It is submitted that addition made by C.I.T. (Appeals] in the tune of Rs. 40, 00,000/- is made without any base, corroborative evidence on record, without proper efforts to find out the veracity and authentication of information relied and without rejecting books of accounts. CIT (Appeals] has mentioned the same fact in their order on pg. no. 40 that.. "This addition is purely on the estimate basis to take care of short comings notices in the accounts of appellant." Such addition is bad and illegal in the eyes of law hence the same is unjustified and the same be deleted. The appellant placed reliance on following case laws to in support of above: * Hon'ble Delhi 1TAT in case of Baldev Raj Chhabra v/s ITO ward-4 Karnal held that.. "Court has given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and find that both the authorities below have acted upon, only on the presumption and without any substantive material for making and sustaining the addition under consideration. In our considered view the presumption cannot be real adjudication of an issue. The very purpose of income tax proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely be taken to form the basis for assessing the income as the consumption of gas necessarily may not be in respect of production process only. 2.2. The Learned CIT (Appeals] has erred while determining appeal by stating that abnormal closing stock is shown in A.Y. 2008-09, without any basis, without any corroborative evidences on record or any independent findings or on the assumptions and surmises and that cannot be base for making addition under the scheme of the Act, which is bad and illegal in the eyes of law. The learned CIT (Appeals] has not put forth any evidences establishing abnormal closing and hence, addition made by CIT (Appeals] is not sustainable. 2.3. The selling price is depends upon many factors like, Price of Raw Material, Quality of Frit Manufactured, etc. Increase in sales in A.Y. 2010-11 is due to increase in selling price for above reasons and / or increased in quality of frit Manufactured. Earlier the quality of the product was low and did not fetch good prices. The appellant increased quality gradually and thus price was increased. Your appellant also wants to draw your attention to the fact that cost of raw material Borax also got doubled. Further Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven with regard to the maintenance of proper books of accounts by the appellant for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 5. The learned C.I.T.(A) has erred in law and on facts in not properly appreciating and considering Various submissions, evidences and supporting placed on the record during the course of the proceedings in and not properly appreciating various facts and law in its proper perspective. 6. That the learned CIT(A) has also erred in proceeding to uphold the levy of penalty on wholly irrelevant, extraneous, and immaterial considerations since whole addition made on estimate basis only. 7. That the learned CIT(A) has also erred in proceeding to uphold in levying interest u/ s. 234A/ B /C / D of the Act. 8. Your appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or to amend all or any of the grounds before the final hearing." AY 2010-11 "Your appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- V, Ahmedabad presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds. 1. The learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in confirming the erroneous and illegal addition made by way of firstly on adhoc and estimated basis only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Consequently, the DGCEI carried out search at the business premises of the assessee on 21-08-2008 and it was alleged that the assessee had resorted to certain measures like removal of ceramic frit, undervaluing of finished goods and issuing parallel invoices etc. to evade excise duty. On the basis of the investigation carried by the Excise Department, the income tax department initiated assessment proceedings and ld. assessing officer made certain additions to the returned income of the assessee, which were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in appeal for the impugned year under consideration. In appeal before ITAT, the assessee submitted that the aforesaid additions have been made on the basis of investigation additions made by the Central Excise Department, against which the assessee has filed appeal before the Custom Excise and Services Tax Tribunal (CESTAT) in respect of which an order was expected shortly. In view of the above facts, the ITAT set aside the file to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for adjudication afresh in the light of the order of the CESTAT. In the set aside proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that CESTAT had deleted all demands for AY 2008-09....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder. The counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 40 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order to point out that the CIT(Appeals) has himself admitted that the additions have been confirmed on an estimated basis in view of the following words: " the addition is purely on estimation basis to take your of shortcomings noticed in the accounts of the appellant". Accordingly, the same are liable to be deleted. The counsel for the assessee further took our attention to pages 56 to 66 of the paper book (CESTAT order) to point out that CESTAT has given complete relief to the assessee and accordingly in light of the above, the additions are liable to be set aside. The counsel for the assessee then drew attention to page 57 of the paper book (page 2 of the CESTAT order) to point out that the CESTAT order relates to the period 2004-05 to 28-2-2010 and accordingly both the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11 are part of the CESTAT order. In response, Ld. D.R. relied upon observations made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We note that vide order dated 19-08-2014, the ITAT in assessee's own case for assessment 2008-09 ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtment in respect of the assessee and also on the basis of contents of the assessment order for assessment year 2008-09. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has mentioned that the assessment for assessment 2008-09 has travelled to ITAT, and same were set aside to the file of CIT (A) in view of order of CESTAT. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the assessment order for assessment of 2010-11 was based on the facts and findings of assessment year 2008-09 and therefore he is required to take similar stand for both the assessment years. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) restricted the addition to Rs. 20 lakhs with the following observations: "In the circumstances and as per ratio laid down in the case laws relied upon by the appellant and the fact that GP ratio is quite reasonable for AY 2010-11, and addition of Rs.20,00,000/- is confirmed while deleting rest of the amount of all the three additions made by the Assessing Officer. This addition is purely on estimation basis to take care of short comings noticed in the accounts of the appellant. Similarly an addition and addition of Rs.40,00,000/- is confirmed while deleting rest of the amount of all the three additions made by the Assessing ....