9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case are that the appellant is a jointsector company established with financial collaboration of Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation, a Government company, for setting up a Soda Ash Project in the backward area of village Sutrapada, near Veraval, Gujarat. For setting up the plant, the assesseecompany entered into agreement with techinical collaboration of a Netherland company. The commercial production started in assessment year 1989-90. The total cost of the project is approximately Rs. 287 Crores. There were search and seizure proceedings at Delhi office on 15.03.1990 and on the same date, a survey was conducted at Ahmedabad office and other branch offices. The first ground of dispute is regarding the cash found in the search a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the heap multiplied by the bulk density. The volume of the heap is calculated based on the mathematically formula applicable to the particular geometrical shape. The assessment of loss of salt is arrived by the difference between the measurement of heap before and after the monsoon." 4. He has also pointed out towards Survey dated 12.12.1988, the method and the procedure adopted by the industry. He contended that the average loss for the previous year which were placed on record in the paper book. He pointed out that in the year 1988-89, the average loss of the assessee was around 6.66%. The table showing the details for the Assessment Years 1988-99 to 1994-95. Asst. Years Amount of additions u/s 143(3) Rs. in Lacs Quantitative detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e balance 16975 MT added at Rs. 105 per MT i.e. Rs. 17.82 lacs He has further contended that the loss for the year in question was actually on the basis of _____________. He further contended that the authority failed to appreciate the factors which were pointed out viz. Rain, total density of rain fall etc. and therefore he contended that not allowing the loss as claimed is contrary to evidence on record and which leads the industries to suffer. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Bhatt has relied on the order passed by the CIT(A). He has mainly relied on para No.25 of the order passed by the CIT(A). The said para No.25 of the order reads as under: "25. I ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 17.04.2003, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, particularly on para 23 and 24 of the said order dated. These relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below: "23.We have considered the rival submissions of the parties, perused the record. The assessee submitted additional evidence. Having heard both sides, we find that additional evidence is in support of grounds of appeal of the assessee of which basic facts and material is on record. Therefore, same is admitted in the interest of justice. It is an admitted fact that due to peculiar and technicality of the process of production of salt possibility of washing loss cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is supported by a cogent documentary evidence. In the absence of such supporting material we are of the view that loss is to be estimated. Now question arose is what should be the reasonable estimation of loss. For this purpose the AO is to adopt some reasonable basis. He has taken the basis of loss declared by the assessee itself on different sites which is 8.74% for Port Victor, 5.18% for Jafrabad site and 3.65% for Una site. The AO adopted 3.65% basis of loss and accordingly he calculated the addition. The CIT(A) found that in A.Y. 88-89 loss upto 5% was accepted by the then CIT(A) and after considering the other material, facts, submission of the assessee, he found that about 5% rate of estimation of loss as reasonable and he according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal currently came to the conclusion that the assessee did not even try to discharge its onus. As it was also evident from the observations made by the Assessing Officer at page No.19 and 20 of his order. The law of evidence mandate that if the best evidence is not placed before the Court, an adverse inference can be drawn as against the person who ought to have produced. The Tribunal has rightly noted in its order that this view is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (1986) 158 ITR 826. The Tribunal has made no error in further relying the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Valimohmed Ahmed Bhai (1982) 132 ITR 214 by holding that the ends of justice and fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
