Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HONBLE
O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)
These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 01.07.2016 and 01.11.2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively.
Since the issues raised in all the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolidated order. We are taking appeal in ITA.No.5985/Mum/2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12 as a lead case.
Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed return of income for the A.Y.2011-12 on 21.09.2011 declaring total income of ₹.20,91,113/-. Return was processed u/s. 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under C.C. Approval and accordingly notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, Ld. AR of the assessee attended and filed relevant information as called for.
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems 4. Assessee is engaged in the business of import, manufacturing of Rough Diamonds and sale of polished diamonds. During the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer on verification of the records observed that assessee imported Rough Diamonds from Belgium and manufactured the polished diamonds and sold the same in local market/export. He observed that assessee has shown that 64,877.43 carat rough diamonds were sent for manufacturing out of which 10,354.3 carat diamonds were rejected and thus the assessee claimed rejection of rough diamond @15.96% at the time of manufacturing of rough diamond. He observed that it is pertinent to note that assessee claimed this rejection over and above wastage claimed by it. According to Assessing Officer the claim of the assessee of rejection of diamonds is unnatural and unrealistic in diamond industry. Accordingly, assessee was asked to substantiate why the claim of the assessee should not be rejected.
In response assessee filed the explanation vide letter dated 24.03.2014 and submitted as under: - “You have also observed that assessee has shown rejection of rough diamonds of 10,354,.35 ct. being 16% of total rough diamonds sent for manufacturing and the assessee has not submitted any evidences for this as also percentage of rejection is why should not be restricted to 2%. In this regard, I may state as under:-
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems (i). Before I deal with the facts of the case, I narrate the process of rejection separation from rough diamonds. Firstly, on receipt of rough diamonds, it will be parted in two fold, one is for in house processing and second one for outsider contractor. Rough diamonds pated for outsider contractor is generally sent to them for processing. Before the start of processing, contractor assort the rough diamonds and separate the rejection diamonds and balance diamonds called as makeable rough sent for processing. This rejection rough diamonds sent back with polished diamonds. Whereas in case of in house processing, first making assortment, rejection diamonds is separated and balance rough diamonds sent for further processing. This rejection diamonds is entered in the stock register. (ii). During the year, assessee has imported rough diamonds 86,419.83 ct. out of total rough diamonds, part of that directly sent for manufacturing and from that, rejection was separated. In this regard, assessee has submitted copies of bills of outsider contractor, where the rough received by them alongwith rejection separated by them was specifically stated, which was send back with polished diamonds. (iii). While in case of in house production, firstly rejection is separated from rough diamonds and balance makeable rough is sent for further process. Detail of rejection separated is entered in the daily stock register. Copy of the daily stock register is furnished before your honour, where also rejection was specifically stated. (iv). Details of rejection separated from rough diamonds are narrated as under: Qty send for Rejection % terms of Particulars Manufacturing received rejection In house rejection 35,031.05 3,095.22 8.84% separated Rejecting separated and 29,846.38 7,259.13 24.32% send back by outsider contractor Overall rejection 64,877.43 10,354.35 15.96% separated from rough diamonds. (v). From the above table, it may be noted that the rejection separated by the assessee firm is also on lower side as compared to outsider contractors. The assessee firm has also submitted copies of (A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems their bills, where the complete details of rejection separated was also stated which was eventually entered in the daily stock register. (vi). During the year, assessee has also sold this rejection in open market and details thereof also submitted to your honour alongwith copies of sale bills (Page No. 1229 of his submission dated 01.03.2014) and no defects was pointed out by your honour. Besides, sale of the rejection was also reduced from the stock of rejection diamonds. This detail is also stated in the Tax Audit report and no adverse remark was made by the auditor. Since, the assessee has substantiate the rejection separated from rough diamonds through third party evidences from originated to sale off rejection diamonds, it cannot be said that no documentary evidences was given by the assessee firm. (vii). Besides, as per details submitted along with evidences, rejection separated in percentage terms was lower that the rejection separated by third party i.e. outsider contractor. Overall rejection percentage is also on lower side. It may be noted that, in the whole diamonds industry, there would be no single incidence where the rejection was separated from rough diamonds at only 2% considering the facts of the case of the assessee related to rough price. Further, your honour is also requested to submit any incidence, if any where rejection was shown at 2% of rough as this cost.”
Further, assessee also submitted job charges bills for manufacturing of Rough Diamonds, month wise details of manufacturing of Rough Diamonds and stock register with movement of Rough Diamonds. Assessee filed the following chart before the Assessing Officer: -
Sr. Rough Rejection Polished Name of Party Date MFC, (CRT) No. (CRT.) (CRT) (CRT) 1 29-04-2010 4823.23 477.93 4345.3 1954.52 Sal Impex 2 29-04-2010 1804.8 580.44 1224,36 376,68 Yamuna Gems 3 29-04-2011 1293.45 414.82 878,63 414.82 Ghanshyambhai C Rupareiiya-HUF 4 19-05-2010 750.52 74.18 676.34 304,22 Yamuna Gems 5 19-05-2010 825.85 81,51 744.34 334.56 Panchabhal C. Rupareliya - HUF
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems Sr. Rough Rejection Polished MFC, (CRT) Name of Party Date No. (CRT.) (CRT) (CRT) 6 24-05-2010 3.72 Nil Nil 2.655 Lemon Technomist 7 27-07-2010 5.08 Nil Nil Lemon Technomist nil 8 30-07-2010 3021.82 882.94 2138,88* 675.44 Yamuna Gems 9 30-07-2010 3021.83 882,95 2138,88 675,45 PanchabhaiC Rupareliya - HUF 10 30-07-2010 3021.83 882.95 2138.88 i 675.45 1 Ghanshyambhai C. Rupareliya-HUF 11 29-08-2010 2577.44 725.55 1851.89 405.01 Ghanshyambhai C Rupareliya-HUF 12 29-08-2010 2577.44 725.55 1851.89 405.01 Panchabhai C Rupareliya - HUF 13 14-09-2010 672.67 65.25 607,42 290.25 jayeshbhai D. Patei (HUF) 14 15-09*2010 405.55 30.25 375.3 180.25 sunli Chandrakantbhai Paswala 15 20-09-2010 5000.45 1398.32 3602.13 785.26 Hareshbhai N. Avaiya 16 29-09-2010 155 Nil 1.335 Lemon Technomist Nil 17 29-09-2010 4.8 Nil 2.602 Lemon Technomist Nil 29812.03 7222.64 22574.24 7483.512 Total
After considering the submissions of the assessee Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation submitted by the assessee and rejected the same with the following reasons: - “4.4 Further, explanation submitted by the assessee regarding rejection of rough diamond is not acceptable for the following reasons; (i) On verification of assessee’s own submission, It is noticed that the assessee has purchased rough diamonds from the following parties and sent for manufacturing from outside agencies as well as to its own manufacturing unit, the percentage of rejection in both situations are as under; Name of parties % of rejection when Sr. % of rejection when from rough manufactured by No. manufactured by own diamond purchased outside parties 1. Diamond Star 1.48% 10.83% 2. Dimple Jewels 5.34 30.54% 3. Komal Gems 0.52 9.91%
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems From the above table it is clear that when diamond was given to outside parties the assessee has shown very high percentage of rejection when the diamond of same quality, purchased through same parties it has very less rejection when it is manufactured by the assessee. Thus it is proved that the assessee has shown false rejection of rough diamond. (ii) On verification of lot wise outside production details submitted by the assessee it is seen that two separate lot of 3021.83 ct was sent for manufacture on 30.07.10 and in respect of both lot there were a rejection of 882.95 ct in both the cases. Since two lots of diamond cannot be same, even though the assessee is showing same figure of rejection. This prove that the rejection shown by the assessee is not proper and it is artificial. (iii) The assessee has claimed that it has sold the rejected diamond at the rate, Rs 70 per ct., On verification it is noticed that he has shown opening and closing stock of rough diamond at the rate of ₹.50 per ct, however, the assessee has not given any details how the rate of rejected diamond were arrived for closing and opening stock and sale of diamond. The assessee also not able to give when the diamond were rejected how it fetched a rate of Rs. 70 per ct On verification of bills of rejected diamond it is noticed that the assessee has sold the ejected diamond in one short at the end of year and till date of sale assessee kept this diamond in his position. This shows that the assessee has simply shown a bill of sale of rejected diamond to substantiate his claim of the same. (iv) The assessee has also sold rough diamond in local market, however, at that time there Is no rejection of diamond. (v) Apart from this rejection the assessee has shown wastage of diamond @ 66.31% which is also very high. If the assessed claim of rejection is accepted then the assessee sent very good quality of diamond for manufacturing after rejecting the low quality, even though yield of diamond in the case of assessee is very low. (vi) The assessee imported rough diamond from Belgium at a average price of ₹.5,805/- ct per diamond. Thus it is clear that the assessee is using a good quality of rough diamond, even though it showing a rejection of 16%. vii) In respect of diamond sent for manufacturing, its rejection and production he assessee himself submitted two statements as (A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems discussed in para 4.1 & 4.2 above. Hence it is clear that the assessee has not kept proper record of rejected diamond. 4.5 In view of the above it is clear that the assessee has claimed excessive percentage of rejection of Rough Diamonds.”
Based on the above observations, Assessing Officer accepted in-house rejection rate of 8.84% on the entire quantity of 64877.43 ct sent for manufacturing (own + outside). Since assessee has claimed overall rejection of 15.96%, therefore, Assessing Officer held that the assessee has shown extra rejection of 7.12% which is equal to 4619.18 ct and the same was calculated at the average cost of Rough Diamonds i.e. ₹.5805/- per ct and enhanced the closing stock to that extent of ₹.2,68,14,340/-.
Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and before Ld.CIT(A) assessee has made following submissions: - “7. The main points of submission of the appellant are as under: a) Since, no rejection of books u/s 145 (3) are made by the AO, trading accounts cannot be disturbed and any addition on estimation cannot be made. Unless the accounts are rejected for express reasons and corroborated by conclusive evidences, no addition is possible on estimate basis. Non-rejection of books means that correctness or completeness of assessee's books are not in doubt. The assessee has maintained complete books of accounts which were audited u/s 44AB, where auditor has not pointed out any defects. Complete books were produced before the AO where no defect was observed by the AO.
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems b) Daily stock register is maintained and complete lot to lot production details. were submitted to the AO. c) The manufacturing process has been accepted by the AO and no defect was pointed out by him. d) Rejection is more in case of low quality rough than high quality rough. Majority of rejection was done by outside contractor [third parties]. Yield of the processed diamonds are verifiable from the third party evidences. Sale of rejection diamonds were accepted by the AO. If the AO had any doubts of production of outside party, he might had called the outsider party by way of 131 or 133(6). e) The addition was made simply on estimation basis without any corroborative evidences and AO has not invoked the provisions of S. 145(3). f) The assessee claimed to have submitted all documentary evidences for valuation of diamond stock before the AO. No discrepancy in stock was found i.e. actual stock position was not in dispute. The stock has been valued on the basis of method as adopted from first year and also followed in the subsequent years without any change. The assessee has followed valuation of rough diamonds on cost basis. Details of valuation of closing stock of rough diamonds were submitted to the AO along with copies of purchase bills, bill of entry etc. g) The assessee has given detailed explanation on rejection of rough diamonds backed by documentary evidence and record. The rejections out of rough diamonds cannot be standardized as the same are subject of quality of rough diamond. h) Rough used for processing at in house was up to Rs. 1,24,306/- whereas rough used for outsider party was of value of Rs. 1,162/- in case of Dimple Jewells. Similarly, rate of rough processed in case of M/s Komal Gems by outsider party was of Rs. 4,703/- while in house production rate ranges from Rs. 26,228/- to Rs. 1,78,942/. Similarly, in case of Diamond star, rough processed by outside party was of Rs. 9,866/- while in house production rate was upto Rs. 90,290/-.
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems i) The AO is wrong in saying that the appellant has not submitted the details as to how the rejection of diamond price fetched Rs. 70/- when the complete details related to sales along with copies of bills were filed which were not doubted by the AO. j) When lot wise and party wise production details were filed„ it has to be verified with the lot to lot details and not at a single average rejection rate. k) The assessee had imported two lots of low value rough diamonds @ 113 per carat on 30.03.2010 [Swintu Diam]. One lot was processed giving higher quality of rejection. Rejection details were filed in tabular form showing rejection of 26.06 % to 28.15%. Here rejection by outside contractors and in house are in the same range. L) Another import of lower value 1,162/- per carat [Diamond Jewels] on 19.11.2009 gave a higher rejection of 30.03 cYci to 32.16%. m) If above two rejections are ignored, then assessee's overall rejection would be less than 5.80 %. It was demonstrated in tabular form by giving all details excluding the aforesaid two imports. n) The appellant has relied on following case laws: a) Ercon Composites -49 Taxmann.com 489 — addition on estimate basis cannot be made without rejecting books. b) Gayotri Oil Mills- 23 taxmann.com 186 — if books audited u/s 44AB, the AO cannot make addition by estimating profit at higher rate on sales without rejecting books u/s 145(3) c) Intermedia Cable Communication (P.) Ltd. 19 taxmann.com 190- unless accounts are rejected for express reasons and corroborated by conclusive evidence, any decision on estimation of income is unsustainable in law. d) Ravi Agricultural Industries 117 ITD 338 (Agra) (TM) — AO was not correct in rejecting books on the basis of fall in sales. e) Shiv Agrevo Ltd. 123 TIJ (Jp) 416- Estimation of yield cannot be made without pointing out any specific defect.
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems f) Arun Oil Industries 3 TTJ(Jp) 378- AO was not justified in rejecting books without specific information and making addition for shortage of yield. g) Vigayan Chemical Industries Del- Mere low yield does not warrant any addition as it varies from concern to concern and year to year. h) Govindram Kakwani- 90 TTJ 981 ITAT, jodh — AO was not justified to make lumpsum addition without rejecting books. i) Nishant Housing Development- 52 ITD 103, ITAT PAT- AO was not justified to make lumpsum addition without rejecting books.”
After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer and further made adjustment on the valuation of rate of diamonds adopted by the Assessing Officer and accordingly reduced the same by observing as under: - “8. I have considered the submission of the appellant on ground no. 2 along with findings in the Assessment order. There is no doubt that yield depends on various factors as submitted by the appellant. However, if there is vast difference in the percentage of rejection in in-house production and production by outside manufacturers, the appellant has to justify the same. Variation in rejection in the aforesaid two cases should not be very big and it should be within a range prevailing in the diamond industry. The AO has clearly demonstrated that the assessee has shown very high percentage of rejection in case of manufacturing from outside parties than in- house manufacturing even in the case of diamond of same quality, purchased from same / parties namely from Diamond Star, Dimple Jewels and Komal Gems. Different figures of diamond sent for manufacturing, its rejection and production were observed in two statements submitted at the time of assessment indicating that proper records of rejected diamonds
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems are not kept. As highlighted by the AO, exactly same figure of rejection was shown on two separate lots sent for manufacture which is not possible since two lots of diamond cannot be of same quality indicating rejection shown to be artificial. The sale of rejected diamond in one short at the end of year at the rate of Rs. 70 per ct also seems artificial and rates for valuing opening and closing stock at ₹.50 per ct. not supported by proper evidence. The diamond imported from Belgium by the assessee was a good quality rough diamond. in spite of that it is showing higher rejection and wastage and low yield. Some of the rough diamonds were also sold without any rejection. Therefore, the AO's action of accepting in house rejection rate of 8.84% on the entire quantity of 64,877.43 Ct sent for manufacturing [own+ outside] seems to justified and hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the suppression of closing stock of rough diamonds by 4619.18 ct is also sustained. 8.1 However, the value of closing stock of rough diamond has to be according to lot wise cost of rough diamonds. So far, valuation of closing stock is concerned / it is settled law that cost of only those items which are available in the closing stock should be considered/applied. On perusal of details of lot wise production, it is found that rejections above 8.84% shown on lots purchased from following two parties are significant: a) Dimple Diamonds - issued : 12198.55 cts [outside] -rejection: 3678.92 cts - percentage of rejection: 30.16%, rate of diamond purchase per cts: Rs. 1, 162/- b) Swintu Diamonds - issued : 10155.32 cts [outside] -rejection: 2849.41 cts percentage of rejection: 28.05 %, rate of diamond purchdse per cts: Rs.113/- c) Swintu Diamonds - issued: 6495.39 cts [inhouse] -rejection: 1729.27 cts - percentage of rejection: 26.625%, rate of diamond purchase per cts: Rs.113/) As apparent from aforesaid facts, the rough diamonds resulting into higher rejections were of low quality purchased at the rate of Rs.113 per cts. or Rs. 1162 per cts. Naturally, rough diamonds available in closing stock due to excess rejection disallowed out of aforesaid lots will be significant. Hence, the value of suppressed
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems stock can only be arrived properly if these lower rates are applied to excess rejection. Application of any other higher-rate will amount to artificially raising the value of closing stock. 8.2 In view of above, the appellant was asked to compute excess rejection over 8.84 % lot and value of excess rejection according to cost of that lot. The appellant has prepared a chart on the basis of all details filed before the AO during the assessment proceedings which has been enclosed along with this order. In the said chart, rejection on both in house and outside production has been restricted to 8.84% as allowed in the assessment order and quantum of excess rejection disallowed has been worked out at 5868.86 cts which is more than rejection of 4619.13 cts disallowed by the AO. The value of excess rejection has been computed lot wise at Rs.41,42,011/- as per the cost of rough diamond in that lot. Hence the closing stock and corresponding income is enhanced by Rs.41,42,011. To conclude, addition on account of suppression of closing stock is restricted to Rs. 41,42,011/- against Rs.2,68,14,340/- made by the AO. The 2nd ground is partly allowed.”
Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before us, raising following grounds in its appeal: -
1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in making an addition of Rs. 41,42,011/- on account of alleged suppression of closing stock and while doing so he amongst other erred: a. In applying standard rejection rate in manufacturing of diamonds @ 8.84% b. In holding that there was suppression of closing stock of rough diamonds of 4619.18 cts. c. In determining the lot wise suppression of closing stock at 5868.86 cts.
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems 12. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR brought to our notice brief facts relating to the rejection of wastage claimed by the assessee. Ld. AR brought to our notice various submission made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT(A). He submitted that assessee is dealing with Rough Diamonds and deals with various kinds/grades of diamonds and it purchased the diamonds based on the grades as well as the rates, depending upon the grade of the diamonds. He brought to our notice Page No 138 of the Paper Book which is Annexure “E" to the Financial Statement in which assessee has valued the closing stock and he brought to our notice closing stock details of Rough Diamonds, Manufacturing Diamonds and Rejection Diamonds. He submitted that the assessee imports Rough Diamonds and also sells the same as it is, and also sent for manufacturing the same. In the process of manufacturing diamonds assessee deals with various kinds/grades of Rough Diamonds and after manufacturing polished diamonds assessee has to absorb the rejections as well as the weight loss in polishing the diamonds. He brought to our notice both losses in the above statement. Further, he brought to our notice, assessee had opening stock of rejected diamonds and addition made during the current year are added and assessee has shown the rejected diamonds and balances were shown as closing stock.
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems 13. Further, he brought to our notice page no 73 of the Paper Book to highlight that assessee has sold the rejected diamonds at ₹.70 on 19.02.2011. He submitted that the sale was accepted by the department, the same cannot be the basis to question the sale.
He prayed that when assessee deals with high value of Rough Diamonds the rejections are less and when the assessee deals with less value of Rough Diamonds the rejections are high. He brought to our notice findings of the Ld.CIT(A) in Para No 8.1 of the order to submit that when assessee deals with diamonds purchased per carat at the rate of ₹.1162 and ₹.113 per carat the rejections are very high. When the assessee deals with the high grade diamonds with the high cost of diamonds the rejections are found to be less. He prayed that based on the submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A) that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee.
On the other hand, Ld.DR submitted that it is the factual matter and he relied on the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) and particularly he brought to our notice Page No. 11 of the Ld.CIT(A) to submit that the factual findings of the Ld.CIT(A) may be accepted.
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems 16. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that assessee is dealing with Rough Diamonds and it is the natural product and it depend upon so many variabilities which determine the percentage of rejection. We find it difficult to accept the findings of the tax authorities that they accept the rejection declared by the assessee in-house whereas rejected the percentage of rejection found during job work process undertaken by the outside parties. As discussed earlier Rough Diamonds is a natural product and the quality depends upon the grades. Based on the grades the rate of the diamonds will vary and no one can determine the exact rate of rejection to a particular grade. We observe from the record that when the assessee deals with lower grade of Rough Diamonds i.e. purchased at the cost of ₹.1162 per carat and ₹.113 per carat the rejections rates are very high. It is wrong on the part of the tax authorities to fix the rate of rejection on the product which is natural and also the graded rejections are based on physical evaluation of the material, it can never be the same on each consignment/order. Therefore, it is not possible to fix the percentage which the assessee has to adopt particularly when it is dealing with natural product.
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems 17. It is also fact on record that, assessee has submitted various documents of processing of Rough Diamonds in-house as well as with the outside parties, these values cannot be set-aside or rejected merely because the percentage of rejection were declared by the assessee is considered to be high. Therefore, we are inclined to reject the finding of the tax authorities and it is a subjective matter and we also observe that there is no qualifying report from the auditors or any outside agency on the processing of the Rough Diamonds by the assessee. We are inclined to accept the rejection rates declared by the assessee. If at all the tax authorities intend to verify the correctness of the rejection rate, it has to verify the rejection rate based on the grades of the Rough Diamonds individual grade wise and batch wise, when they deal with higher grades it has to be verified on the same grades and it cannot be compared with overall rejection out of total grades imported by the assessee. In our considered view the comparison should be apple to apple. Therefore, since the issue involved is a subjective matter, we are inclined to accept the submissions of the assessee. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
(A.Y. 2011-12) ITA.No. 512/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13) M/s. Parin Gems 18. Coming to the appeal relating to A.Y. 2012-13, since facts in this appeal are mutatis mutandis, therefore the decision taken in A.Y.2011-12 is applicable to this assessment year also. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.05.2022.