2026 (4) TMI 1635

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... tax appeal, the following substantial questions of law are proposed for determination:- (i) "Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in ignoring the material seized during the course of search proceedings?" (ii) "Whether on the facts and in Law the Ld. Tribunal as justified in dismissing the addition of Rs. 7,23,86,243/- on account of unaccounted production of Unit Vapi?" 3. So far as substantial question of law No. 4(ii) is concerned, a bare perusal of the same would reveal that the same cannot, in any manner, be said to propose a substantial question of law, as the same pertains to the facts of the case. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Rutvij Patel, appearing for the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2008-09 to 2013-14. 7. In the present case, the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical products, having a manufacturing facility at Vapi, referred to as Unit-I (Vapi Unit). A search action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on the business and residential premises of the Shah Group, as well as at the premises of its group concerns and its Director, Mr. Kamal J. Shah, on 18.06.2013. Pursuant thereto, assessments for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2013-14 came to be completed. The income for Assessment Year 2013-14 was assessed at Rs. 11,18,62,230/- under Section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 153A of the Act, vide order dated 28.03.2016, after making additions of Rs. 1,85....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rse of search. 10. The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide common order dated 29.10.2021 passed in six appeals pertaining to Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2013-14, dismissed the appeals of the Revenue by upholding the findings of the CIT(A). 11. During the course of proceedings, it appears that a search was undertaken on the respondent. During the course of the search, the statement of one Shri Kantibhai Patel, working as a Production Manager at the Vapi Unit, was recorded. The said Manager - Shri Kantibhai Patel produced month-wise production charts for Financial Years 2010-11 to 2012-13, which were duly inventorized. 12. The Assessing Officer noted differences between the details furni....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by Mr. K H Patel as data of strips. As a strip contains number of tablets and/or capsules, this evident error in comparison naturally resulted in absurd differences. The Id CIT(A) observed that as the Units of production figures as given by Mr. K H Patel of other products like Syrups and Dry Syrups which was litres and Kgs matched with the Units of quantity in the sale figures from tally ERP register; naturally the AO did not find any difference in these items. In the case of Capsules and Tablets where each of the strips contained 2,4,6,10,30,100 and even more tablets/capsules; it is clear that Assessing Officer has compared total tablets/capsules (considering the same as total strips) with total number in actual quantity column w....