TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer on account of the profit element @ 15.18% involved in the alleged suppressed sales - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.1067/Ahd/2018 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) - - - Dated:- 3-3-2022 - SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Revenue by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR Assessee by : Shri P.B. Parmar, Advocate ORDER PER PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad [CIT(A)] dated 09/02/2018 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the deletion by the Ld.CIT(A) of the addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as the documentary evidences recovered from several premises during the course of investigation against Tiles manufacturers, a search operation was conducted at the premises of M/s.Zirconia on 28.08.2008. Investigation conducted by DGCEI against M/s.Zirconia, reveals that they have not declared the actual assessable value of goods manufactured and cleared from their registered factory premises. The documentary as well as oral evidences collected by DGCEI from various buyers clearly indicates that M/s.Zirconia was declaring in their central excise invoices only a part of the actual transaction value of Fruit manufactured and cleared from their factory. Differential value of Frit, over and above the value declared in the invoices, was colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e invoices, thereby suppressing the sales and also had understated the production and it s unaccounted sale of such clandestine production. For the year under consideration i.e. F.Y. 2008-09, the amount of under valuation and the amount of Clandestine removal goods has been worked out at ₹ 9,72,25,651/- as mentio9ned in SCN issued by DGCEI. 3. On the basis of above information, a show-cause notice was issued by the AO seeking explanation of the assessee in the matter. Eventhough a detailed explanation was offered by the assessee in this regard, the Assessing Officer did not find merit in the same for the reasons given in his order and rejecting the same, he made an addition of ₹ 1,45,83,848/- to the total income of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter has now reached finality in favour of the appellant. Based on these facts, the Hon ble ITAT, Ahmedabad has also ruled in favour of the appellant in the identical additions made in AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09. In view of all these facts, I find that the matter is now decided by the Hon ble ITAT in favour of the appellant since the very show cause notice which was the basis of the addition being made in the appellant s case has been quashed by CESTAT and similar additions made in the appellant s case have been deleted by the Hon ble ITAT, Ahmedabad. In view of the discussion above, the addition made of ₹ 1,45,83,848/- by the AO on the basis of this SCN cannot be sustained and is deleted. The addition made of ₹ 1,45,83,848/- is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s income tax assessment for the years under consideration and made addition of estimated Gross Profit on under valuation sales and clandestine removal of goods. The Revenue has brought nothing on record that it has applied it s mind over and above the contents of show-cause notice in question thus there is lack of independent application of mind on behalf of revenue in these matters. 12. Without prejudice to above, we find that in Excise proceedings, concerned authorities passed order against assessee and matter was carried up to concerned Hon ble CESTAT. Hon ble CESTAT vide its order dated 12/02/2015 as discussed above, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that Excise Department could not estimate value of allege ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same are directed to be deleted in both the assessment years. In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. 6. As the issue involved in the year under consideration as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to that of AYs 2007-08 2008- 09, we respectfully follow the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal rendered for AYs 2007-08 2008-09 and uphold the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 1,45,83,848/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the profit element @ 15.18% involved in the alleged suppressed sales of ₹ 9,72,25,651/-. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 03rd March, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
