TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1771
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law arises on the following factual backdrop:- 3. The respondent herein/assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of re-rolled products such as heavy steel structural, joist and girder. Search and seizure on the premises of the assessee was conducted on 21-6-2011, assessment was completed on 30-3-2016 and order was passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer has made an addition on account of unaccounted sales based on an estimated production yield of 89% in the assessee's SMS Division. The Assessing Officer adopted an estimated yield ratio and proceeded to calculate alleged unaccounted production and consequential sales, resulting in substantial additions over multiple years. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 19,09,67,165/- by recording following finding:- "5.2 I have carefully perused the submission of the assessee. However, the submission of the assessee is not acceptable for the following reasons: (i) The assessee has failed to justify the reasons convincingly for low yield in SMS Division in the F.Y. under consideration as compared to the average annual yield. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....FY 2009-10 and in the case of rolling mill division it has increased by nearly 52%. My attention was also invited to the increase in cost of raw material and inputs in the rolling mill division such as blooms and billets as well as the increase in the cost of inputs of SMS division. I observe that the AO has made the addition by estimating the yield at 89% of the total raw material consumed in the SMS division after rejecting the books fo accounts of the appellant. The only reason for rejection of books of accounts adduced by the AO is that the appellant had declared yield in the SMS division less than 89%. In the opinion of the AO as can be seen, the yield of the appellant company should have been same in all the years as the nature of the business is the same as it was during the period covered under the search proceedings. In the assessment order the AO has not brought on record any irregularity or defect in the books of accounts bills and vouchers and other documentary evidences pertaining to the year under consideration. What can be noticed from the assessment order is that the AO has based his assessment on the outcome of the search assessment proceedings for the sea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion made by the AO, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the ITAT and the learned ITAT concurred with the findings of the CIT (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal by the impugned order resulting into filing of appeal before this Court. 6. Mr. Amit Chaudhari, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department i.e. the appellant herein/Revenue appearing through Video Conferencing, would submit that both the authorities were absolutely unjustified in deleting the addition of unaccounted sales based on an estimated production yield of 89% which is based on the evidence available on record as a result of search and seizure conducted and the assessment order has rightly been passed under the provisions contained in Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the IT Act which could not have been reversed by the CIT (Appeals) and could not have been affirmed by the ITAT, therefore, the appeal be allowed. 7. Mr. Sumit Nema, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent herein/assessee, would support the impugned orders passed by the CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT and submit that the aforesaid findings recorded by the two authorities deleting the addition of Rs. 19,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench concerning A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2012-13 on the same very issue in the case of the assessee in ITA Nos. 232 to 235/RPR/2014 order dated 07.11.2019. The coordinate bench after taking note of the relevant facts emerging on record, found substantial merit in the decision rendered by the CIT(A) in those years and thus endorsed the action of the CIT(A) in deleting such additions on account of lower yield. ... 10. In the light of the view taken by the co-ordinate bench in the case of assessee in earlier assessment years, the issue is no longer res integra. It is evident that issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for AYs. 2009-10 to 2012-13 wherein also the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed after elaborate discussion on factual and legal matrix. The revenue could not bring any cogent reason to take a departure from the earlier view. Thus, in consonance with the view expressed earlier, we do not see any merit in the plea of the Revenue for restoration of the additions deleted by the CIT(A) on this score." 10. However, at this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mill....