9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11,75,658/-." 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing mung dal as well as trading in Adad dal and Tuver dal. In this case, a survey operation u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) was carried out on 04-02-2002 in which certain discrepancies were noticed in respect of stock & cash. During the survey proceedings, for ascertaining the correct yield of main product and biITA products, a sample of milling of 1250 kg of mung was done. The above milling operation has shown the following results: Rough Mung 25 bags of 50 kg X 24 1250 kg. Mungdal 19 bags X 50 kg 950.000 Chuni kg. 59.00 Waste stone etc. 41.550 100.500 Mungdal stock in machine 188.000 1250 kg. From the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7527- is credited into books of accounts. Therefore, the fotri cannot be taken into consideration is waste or process loss since there is no loss whatsoever of fotri. The fotri or kurma or chuni is used as cattle feed. Further the wastage of 3.9% is to be considered with reference the deduction made for quality difference and quantity difference. The amount deducted for shortages [14.30 Qts] and the quality difference of ₹ 30726/- is credited in the P & L account. Further it may please be noted that the physical stock found at the time of (survey was in agreement with the book stock. ....." 3.2 The assessee also contended that he has maintained day to day quantity details which were periodically inspected by the civil supplies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessment order. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee's main arguments before the CIT(A) was that entire addition is based on AO's presumption that shortage in production of mung dal as reflected in production of kurma which is without any evidence. It was also stated by the assessee before the CIT(A) that the shortage is worked out on the basis of purchase discount of ₹ 14,26,679/- though actual shortage was of ₹ 33,726/- i.e. 14.30 quintals only. Yield of mung dal was shown at 89.94% as against 91.06 % worked out by the AO. It was brought to the notice of the CIT(A) by the assessee that there was a mistake in calculation made by the AO and the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed production. The assessee also submitted that the physical stock and book stock was in agreement as per Panchnama prepared on the date of survey. According to the assessee the stock of bardan was not taken into account for the purpose of arriving at book stock. If the said stock is taken into account then the book stock and physical stock are in agreement. The assessee also submitted before the CIT(A) that is has maintained day to day complete quantity details which was certified by Civil Supply Department and were available at the time of survey. This stock register has been considered by the auditors and the quantitative details are mentioned in the audit report on the basis of stock register. The accounts are audited and that no defe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in the group case of M/s. Jai Pulse Mills, in which simultaneously survey was carried out my predecessor vide order dated 5.3.2004 for A. Ys. 1995-96 to 1998-99 has held that proper wastage allowable to the appellant firm was 9.5% meaning thereby that the yield would be 90.5% If the yield is correctly worked out as shown in submissions of the assessee, the yield for the year actually works out to 90.88% as under: Consumption of mug as per stock record 55505.77 Qtl Less: Weight of Bardan Shortage in weight 555.00 Qtl Shortage in weight 14.30 Qtl 569.30 Qtl Net consumption of mug 54936.47Qtl Production of mugdal 49923.85 90.88% Kurma 3954.30 7.20% Deficit 1058.32 1.92% Therefore, even on this basis there is no case for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in which simultaneously survey was carried out, his predecessor has held that proper wastage allowable to the assessee firm was 9.5% meaning thereby that the yield would be 90.5%. The CIT(A) has correctly stated in the instant case that the yield in the year under consideration worked out to 90.88%. It is also seen that in the AY 1999-2000 and 2000-01 the CIT(A) has deleted such addition vide his order dated 05-12-2003 in assessee's case. It seems that the Revenue has not challenged the orders of the CIT(A) in appeal before the Tribunal relating to AY 1999-2000 and 2000- 01. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not see any valid ground for interfering with the order of the CIT(A). We find that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
