TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale outside the books. This order came to be challenged before the CIT(Appeals) which reduced the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Against this order of CIT(Appeals), both the Revenue and assessee respondent approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the tribunal by a common judgement held in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The impugned judgement of the tribunal dated 27.7.2000 is in challenge before this Court by way of present appeal. 2. While admitting the appeal, following question of law was framed for determination of this Court : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law in deleting the disallowance made on account of process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of cotton seed would certainly impact the raw cotton seed oil and consequently refined cotton seed oil. Quality of raw material would depend on several factors such as rainfall, quality of soil and other such factors. It was also noted that if the raw cotton seed oil is obtained from crushing of inferior quality of cotton seed, then the process loss was likely to be higher, but Gross Profit rate may go up since the assessee may have purchased the raw material at a cheaper rate. Tribunal also noted that there were instances where though process loss was high, Gross Profit rate was also high compared to other years. Tribunal noted contention of the assessee that the production recorded and maintained by the assessee were being checked and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have come to the conclusion that the process loss was artificially inflated. Tribunal had also relied on certificate given by the supplier of machine who stated that typically the process loss ranges between 2.65% to 4.20%. 11. In addition to above, we also notice that in earlier years, orders passed by the tribunal were accepted by the Revenue and not carried in appeal. 12. Sum total of above discussion is that we do not find that the decision of the tribunal requires reconsideration. Question No.(1) is therefore, answered against Revenue. 5. As nothing is pointed out by the Revenue before this Court to take a different view than already taken in case of this very assessee, the issue proposed in the present case also is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
