No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeal has been preferred by the Revenue
against the order dated 06.03.2017 of the Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeal), Patiala [hereinafter referred to as
‘CIT(A)’].
The Revenue in this appeal has taken the following grounds:-
“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), Patiala has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,44,917/- made on account of GP af ter rejecting the books of accounts by applying the rate of 8.5% instead of 7.90% as shown by the assessee.
ITA No. 915/Chd/2017- M/s S.S. Spintex Ltd., Fatepur
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), Patiala has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,64,870/- made on account of working capital for unaccounted production of 2,52,655 Kg. of cotton yarn.
3 It is prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing off icer restored.
4 Them appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and f inally disposed of.”
The Revenue in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of
the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the Assessing
officer on estimated GP rate after rejecting the books of
account of the assessee. The Assessing officer had also made
additions on account of estimated unaccounted production and
also on account of estimated unaccounted working capital
consumed in relation to the unaccounted production.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our
attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) and has
submitted that each and every issue has been thoroughly and
properly dealt with and discussed by the CIT(A) in his
impugned order to arrive at a conclusion that the aforesaid
additions made by the Assessing officer were not sustainable.
He, has submitted that the Assessing officer in this case had
rejected the books of account pointing out the discrepancies
such as non-maintenance of stock register, non-maintenance of
day to day record of consumption of consumable stores, non-
maintenance of record of consumption of packing material,
inconsistency in the consumption of electricity units vis-a-vis
ITA No. 915/Chd/2017- M/s S.S. Spintex Ltd., Fatepur
production of the finished goods, variation in the sale rates of
finished goods and cotton wastage, variation in the yield from
time to time and failure of the assessee to explain regarding
the fall in the GP rate as compared to earlier assessment years.
The Ld. counsel has further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)
has discussed the above issue in the impugned order. The Ld.
CIT(A) after going through the record has observed that the
assessee company had been maintaining the stock register
which contained the weight of raw materials purchased, weight
thereof issued for production in different types of cotton yarns,
the production details containing different counts of threads
achieved during period of 24 hours starting from 8 AM in the
morning to 8 AM of the next morning. The Ld. CIT(A) has also
made observation that the said register also contained the
details of goods sold on day to day basis. He also observed that
the register contained the details of inward and outward of the
materials on day to day basis in respect of all the items
received / consumed and dispatched by the assessee. He,
therefore, held that the observation of the Assessing officer
that the assessee had not been maintaining stock register was
contrary to the facts on record. Regarding the non-
maintenance of the record of the consumables, it was
submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that there were no
consumables except spare parts which were meant for repair
and maintenance only and not for production. Therefore, the
assessee was not supposed to maintain the register with regard
to the consumables. However, the copies of invoices of the
consumables on account of repair and maintenance expenses
ITA No. 915/Chd/2017- M/s S.S. Spintex Ltd., Fatepur
had been furnished to the Assessing officer which was also
examined by him. So far as the non-maintenances of record of
some of the packing material was concerned, it was explained
to the CIT(A) that the packing material comprised of number of
items like paper tubes, polythene, jute etc. and that the
purchase of these items was supported by purchase invoices
had been duly recorded in the books of account. That it was
not practically feasible to maintain day to day quantitative
consumption details of the various items of packing materials.
Even many items like paper cones / tubes being very fragile got
wasted in handling.
The Ld. CIT(A) considering the above submissions noted
that the Assessing officer had not pointed out any specific
discrepancy in the purchase of packing material and sale of
furnished goods. He further observed that complete production
records were also maintained by the assessee.
Regarding variation in sale rate, cotton yarn and cotton
waste, it was explained before the CIT(A) that the sale rate of
cotton yarn vary daily and was market-driven. It was also
explained that the cotton waste as obtained at different points
of manufacturing process, it had different quality and that the
price of the waste was dependable on the quantity and quality
of the wastage. So far as the declining in yield as compared to
earlier years was concerned, it was explained that the same
had been recorded on actual basis, which was dependent on
the quality of the raw material, proportion of the different
types of raw cotton used and further it was explained that as
the machine get older, the quality and quantity of the cotton
ITA No. 915/Chd/2017- M/s S.S. Spintex Ltd., Fatepur
yarn produced in the units go on declining year after year. The
further factors for low GP rate was also explained that the
machinery installed in the assessee factory was old machinery,
whereas, the other units in the line of business had installed
high-tech manufacturing machinery which produces high
quality of yarn and fetches more price as compared to the
quality of yard produced by the assessee. It was also explained
that the GP rate was actual and was as per the audited books
of account. So far as the variation in the power consumption
vis-à-vis production of finished goods was concerned, it was
explained that the power consumption on a day would not
mandatory result into production of furnished goods. The
electricity may be consumed for so many other purposes,
besides it was not necessary that the finished goods would
come into existence on the same date. That there was so many
electric cuts during the year which created variation in
consumption of the electricity. That the estimation of the
production on the basis of electricity consumption, by the
Assessing officer, was not proper and justified. It was also
explained before the CIT(A) that the allegation of the
Assessing officer that there was unaccounted production of
cotton yarn and cotton waste was not based on any evidence.
The above allegations were based on assumption and
presumption and on account of inconsistency in power
consumption on day to day basis. However, no other evidence
was available with the Assessing officer to form an opinion that
the assessee was indulged in unaccounted production. Neither
there was any evidence of purchase of any unaccounted raw
material nor there was any evidence of sale of finished goods or
ITA No. 915/Chd/2017- M/s S.S. Spintex Ltd., Fatepur
waste thereof. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the facts and
circumstances of the case observed that the assessee had
explained the reasons of variation in electricity consumption
and that the addition on this account was purely on estimation
basis was not justified. He also got satisfied with the
explanation of the assessee on other issues also as discussed
above. He according deleted the additions so made by the
Assessing officer.
We have gone through the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). In
our view, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed each and every issue in
detail and found that the action of the Assessing officer in
rejecting the books of account of the assessee and estimation
of the income of the assessee on estimated GP rate and further
assuming unaccounted production and unaccounted working
capital would not be justified. We do not find any infirmity in
the order of the CIT(A) and the same is therefore, upheld.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby
dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09.07.2018
Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 09.07.2018
Ganesh Kumar/rkk
Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR