Prakash Chand Mangtani, V. Income Tax Officer,

ITA 149/JAB/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1064 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D R LATHORIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: A P SHRIVASTAVA; SAPAN USRETHA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A.M. I.T.A.NO. 149/JAB/2013 A.Y. : 2006-07 PRAKASH CHAND MANGTANI, PROP. M/S. VAISHNAV DALL MILL, MADHAV NAGAR, KATNI.CIT, VS INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD KATNI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. : AFRPM3209H APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.P.SHRIVASTAVA, ADV. & SHRI SAPAN USRETHA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.R.LATHORIYA, DR . DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 . 0 5 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 . 0 6 .201 5 -: 2: - 2 O R D E R PER GARASIA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), JABALPUR, DATED 13.12.2012 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE : - 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ADDITION OF RS. 332,960/- IN LOW YIELD OF GRAM DALL IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED. 2. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 20,000/- IN MILL WAGES PAID IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED. 3. GROUND NO. 2 WAS NOT ARGUED. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE D ERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF PULSES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD MASOOR DALL AND GRAM DALL AND FILTRATION OF GRAM AN D SALE THEREOF. THE AO HAS VERIFIED THE YIELD OF MASOOR DA LL ACCOUNT -: 3: - 3 AND IT WAS BETTER THAN LAST YEAR, BUT THE SHORTAGE WAS VERY HIGH. THE ASSESSEE SOLD GRAM DALL IN WEIGHTED 28206 .500 QUINTAL AND CHUNI SOLD IN WEIGHTED 9277.190 QUINTAL AND GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS AT 4.74 %. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TRADED IN BUSINESS OF GRAM PURCHASED FROM KRISHI UPAJ MAND I AND OTHER DEALERS AND AFTER FILTERING AND SORTING THE F ILTRATE GRAM IS SOLD TO THE OTHER DEALERS. THE AO HAS VERIFIED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THERE WAS DECREASE IN GRAM DALL OF 1.18 % COMPARING TO LAST YEAR AND THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE CHECKED AND AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A LOW YIELD AND YIELD WAS 79% WHICH WAS LOWER. THEREFORE, HE HAS ESTIMATED THE YIELD AT 79% AND ADDED THE SALE AT RS . 3,32,960/-. 5. THE MATTER CARRIED TO LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE COMPARATIVE POSITION OF GRAM ACCOUNT. THE AO HAS WR ONGLY TAKEN THE FIGURE OF CONSUMPTION AT 32214.14, WHERE AS THE CORRECT FIGURE OF CONSUMPTION IS 31702.62 AND BECAU SE OF THIS YIELD PERCENTAGE IS CALCULATED AT 78.50%. IF THE CO RRECT FIGURE IS -: 4: - 4 TAKEN, THE YIELD COMES TO 79.77 %, WHICH IS BETTER THAN EARLIER YEARS. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS ADMITTED TH AT HE HAS WRONGLY TAKEN THE FIGURE OF YIELD. THEREFORE, NO AD DITION IS REQUIRED. 6. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF REVEN UE AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMPARED THE YIELD FROM LAST YEA R. THE AO COMPUTED TOO LOW YIELD AND REJECTED THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT U/S 145(3) AND ESTIMATED THE YIELD OF GRAM AT 79% AND M ADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,32,960/-. THE AO FOUND THAT ONLY SALES AND PURCHASE ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED SEPARATELY FROM TR ADING AND MANUFACTURING BUSINESS AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAI NTAINED TRADING OF GARMENT AND MANUFACTURING OF TALLY ARE N OT MAINTAINED SEPARATELY , THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) H AS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVES ARGUMENT THAT THE YIELD OF THIS YEAR IS BETTER THAN LAST YEAR IF THE MISTAKE IS RECTIFIED. ON CONSIDERING OF ARGUMEN TS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN BOOKS OF TH E ACCOUNT -: 5: - 5 ARE REJECTED AND LOOKING TO THE OVER ALL VIEW OF TH E MATTER, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,32,612/-, WHICH IS ON HIGHER SIDE. THEREFORE, WE RESTRICT THIS ADDITION TO RS. 1 ,50,000/-. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE, TH E LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO .2, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 34 (4) OF I.T.A.T. RULES, BY PUTTING THE COPY OF THE SAME ON NOTICE BOARD ON 25 TH JUNE, 2015. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 25 TH JUNE , 2015. -: 6: - 6 CPU* 17256