TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the sake of convenience. 2. The first common ground for both the assessment years relates to deletion of trading addition of Rs. 6,72,534 (Rs. 3,50,788 for assessment year 1995-96). The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of extraction of oil from rice bran and phak. The assessee started its business in the accounting year relevant to assessment year 1994-95. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown the yield of oil at 10.93% of rice bran and phak as compared to yield shown at 12.25% by other assessees. Even for assessment year 1995-96 the yield shown by the assessee at 12.11% was found on the lower side. The assessee explained that assessment year 1994-95 was the first year of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business. Neither the management nor the technicians were conversant with the production process which resulted in low yield. Accepting the contentions of the assessee. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the addition. 4.1 As regards assessment year 1995-96 the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that small decrease in the yield was fully covered by the income of Rs. 30 lakhs disclosed under section 132(4). Therefore, there was no need to make a separate addition on this account. The revenue is aggrieved by the orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence these appeals before us. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative simply relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 6. Ld. Counsel of the assessee on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of low yield could be made. The judgment of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills ( supra ) supports the case of the assessee. Thus, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and the same is upheld. 7.1 As regards assessment year 1995-96, the assessee, itself, has disclosed income of Rs. 30.00 lakhs. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no addition on account of low yield was called for in assessment year 1995-96 as the income of Rs. 30.00 lakhs disclosed under section 132(4) was also from business and duly covered the low yield. Here also, the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is upheld. Accordingly, respective grounds of appeals for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, Amrosingh, Rajindersingh and Deepak Kumar 220 ITR 738 ( sic ) and the decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh in the case of Ganesh Rice Mill Barnala v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 85 of 1989]. Accepting the contentions of the assessee. ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition on the ground that no addition could have been made without rejecting the book results. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 10. Ld. Departmental Representative simply relied on the order of Assess-ing Officer, on the other hand ld. Counsel of the assessee, supported the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and reiterated the submissions made before her. 11. We have heard both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not find any justification to interfere with the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The same is upheld and this ground is dismissed. 12. Last ground of appeal for assessment year 1995-96 related to deletion of addition of Rs. 7,417 on account of sale of de-oiled cakes not reflected in the books of account. Briefly stated, the background of this addition is that at the time of search, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not accounted for sale of de-oiled cakes amounting to Rs. 7,417. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, made an addition. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition on the ground that the same was covered by income of Rs. 30.00 lakhs disclosed under section 132(4). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
