9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime was a manufacturer of LPG cylinders. It used to supply the said cylinders to three companies, namely, BPCL, HPCL and IOC. 3. In pursuance to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of Act, 1961, a fresh assessment order under Section 143(3) of Act, 1961 was passed by the Assessing Officer on 18th February, 2005. By the said order, Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,80,48,856/- on account of inflation of purchases. However, on a remand order passed by the ITAT, Assessing Officer calculated the excess consumption of steel at Rs. 1,07,67,750/-. But Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal and held the value of excess consumption at Rs. 95,03,697/-. On an appeal being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ylinder on the specification of the drawings which is part of the purchase order. In the drawing tare weight of the cylinder has been specified to 16.7 KG. The AO as well as Ld. DR sought to dispute this specification by an argument that it is just an example. But we do not find any merit in that contention because in the drawing it is not only specified on the body of the cylinder out also on the right hand corner of the document it is again specified 16.7 KG. Even for the sake of argument we assume that it was an example then why it was 16.7 Kg why not any other alphabet or figure. The drawing in itself explained the specification of every part of the cylinder. The next evidence produced by the assessee is the terms and condition of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objected to each single fact in isolation but by assessing the cumulative effect of all the facts in their setting as a whole. In the present case, Ld. Revenue authorities below fail to point out any specific defects in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee the scrap generation shown by the assessee is lower than the other comparative case. Its total wastage is 26.20% whereas in the comparable case it was 26.65%. The Ld. CIT(A) did not take cognizance of the excise record only on the ground that certified copy of the audit report was not submitted. The assessee claimed that it is maintaining RG register and excise department did not find any defects in its record. The AO ought to have called for the information from the excise de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
