TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s "Act"). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:- 1. The very action taken u/s 147 r.w.s 148 by the ld. AO and confirmed by the CIT(A)/NFAC is bad in law, without jurisdiction and being void ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment framed u/s 143(3)/148 dated 30.03.2016 also kindly be quashed. 2. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC seriously erred in not directing the ld. AO to decide the objections filed by the appellant within a reasonable period of time and further seriously erred in proceeding to make the assessment through notices issued u/s 143(2) & 142 of the Act, which was in a direct contravention of the binding directions of the Honble Supreme Court given in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stment in the initial unaccounted capital involved @50% of the suppressed sale (less the estimated addition of the gross profit), u/s 69/69C of the Act. The addition so made being completely contrary to the provisions of law and facts and rather being the result of suspicion, surmises and conjectures, hence, the same kindly be deleted in full. 6. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC- New Delhi further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the charging interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The appellant to tally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 7. The appellant prays your honour indulgenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred before this Tribunal. During the course of proceedings before us, the appellant brought to our notice the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 29.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has already deleted the entire additions made by the AO on the same ground that the entire addition was based on an allegation that there was a clandestine removal of finished goods as recorded by the Central Excise Authorities were found to be not sustainable by the Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) vide Hon'ble Tribunal No. Principal Bench-Court No.1 Excise Appeal No.50072 of 2016 (CESTAT). The decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal has been quoted by the Ld. CIT(A) in its order dated 29.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 as under:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b-paragraph of paragraph 132 which is reproduced below: B. Investigation on the basis of statements of Shri Hussain Khan, Labour Contractor, Electricity Consumption Meter reading provided by AVVNL for the month of three months i.e., April, May and June 2012 and further corroborated by statement of Shri Vasudev Bherwani, part time accountant has established that production work was done in the factory on Sundays as per the normal capacity and was not recorded in the RG-1 Register properly, therefore, the demand of duty on the quantified value in the table to the Show Cause Notice which is based upon 42 GRs of New Vikas Transport Company, Ajmer alleging clandestine clearance of 536.69 MT of excisable goods valued at Rs 1.83 crores is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs, the orders were cancelled by the buyers. In respect of the remaining 37 GRs, goods were despatched and original copies of the GRs (which accompany the goods) were procured by either the department or by the assessee from the buyers. The question which arises is whether goods were supplied against the triplicate copies of the GRs without paying duty to the buyers. The 42 GRs pertain to 27 different buyers of which statements of were recorded by the department. They were cross examined during the adjudication during which they clarified that they have never received any non-duty paid consignments. Of the remaining 18, most have filed affidavits to the effect that they had not received any non-duty paid consignments. GR is a third party do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leared from the factory and transported to the customer. There is no reason for two copies of the GR (original and triplicate) to have different details. This only supports the finding that the goods were removed twice-once with the invoice as reflected in the original copy of GR and again as per the details in the triplicate copy of the GR for which there is no corresponding invoice. This inference is further supported by the facts that the factory's electricity consumption on Sundays was the same as on any other day but no production was recorded on Sundays in the RG-1 register (Production register). It is further confirmed by the statements of the labour contractor Shri Hussain Khan and the part time accountant. 47. We have ....