TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention of the assessee that variation in consumption of electricity might be caused due to various reasons such as break down of machinery, quality of raw materials, thickness of finished goods and frequency of power failure etc. and such facts could not be controverted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal further observed that the argument of the assessee was rather accepted by the Assessing Officer to the extent of 30%, for which no basis could be cited. - Decided against the revenue. - TAX APPEAL No. 2657 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2012 - MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA AND MR. J.B. PARDIWALA JJ. Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE forMS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant. ORAL ORDER (Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her noticed that 14,15,899 units of power was consumed by the assessee in the entire year and by taking the production rate as 1 MT against consumption of 622.9 units of power, the total production should be 2329.264 MT whereas the assessee had shown production of only 1736.535 MT, and by adopting the average sale price of 22436.88 MT shown by the assessee, arrived at the value of suppressed production of 592.729 MT at Rs.1,33,04,916/-. Thereafter, allowing rebate for all adverse eventualities in the production process with reference to the consumption of power and also considering the contention of the assessee that production cannot be compared with the consumption of power, estimated 70% of Rs.1,33,04,916/- as suppressed production of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... frequency of power failure etc. and such facts could not be controverted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal further observed that the argument of the assessee was rather accepted by the Assessing Officer to the extent of 30%, for which no basis could be cited. After hearing Mr. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the aforesaid findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] and the Tribunal, we find that the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below are quite reasonable and neither can it be said to be vitiated by any error of law nor can it be branded as perverse findings justifying interference in this appeal preferred under section 260A of the Act. Thus, no s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
