The ACIT,(OSD)Circle-8, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Schutz Dishman Biotech Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1519/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94745 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: P B PARMAR
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO: 1519/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) THE A.C.I.T. (OSD) CIRCLE- 8, AHMEDABAD V/S SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIOTECH PVT. LTD. BHADARAJ CHAMBERS, NR. CROSS ROADS, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD-380009 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AACCS 0988C APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.L. SHARMA, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.B. PARMAR ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 01-12-201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 -12-2015 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD DATED 20.04.2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. ITA NO. 1519 /AHD/2012 . A.Y.2008-09 2 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PHARMACEUTICALS & FINE CHEMICALS. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ON 24.09.2008 DEC LARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL AFTER SETTING OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINE SS LOSSES OF RS. 80,37,554/- AND BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB AT RS. 1,28, 66,565/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.2011 AND THE TOTAL TA XABLE INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 2,15,20,067/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE O RDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 20.04.2012 GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEV ED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US A ND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,93,29,886/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATION O F PURCHASES OF RAW MATERIAL AND RS. 76,35,041/- MADE U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O NO TICED THAT IN EARLIER YEARS, ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE I N THE ACTUAL CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL AND THE STANDARD CONSUMPTION PRESCR IBED UNDER EXIM INPUT OUTPUT NORMS (DUTY EXEMPTION SCHEMES) 2002 TO 2007. ON PERUSING THE DETAILS OF VARIATION BETWEEN ACTUAL CONSUMPTION AND THE STANDARD CONSUMPTION FOR THE YEAR THAT WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, A.O NOTICED THAT AS IN EARLIER YEARS, AND AS PER THE DETAILS, T HERE WAS SHORT CONSUMPTION OF RS. 75,35,041/- ON ACCOUNT OF RAW MATERIALS AND THE RE WAS ALSO EXCESS CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL OF RS. 1,93,29,886/-. A .O NOTED THAT SIMILAR ITA NO. 1519 /AHD/2012 . A.Y.2008-09 3 ADDITIONS WERE MADE FROM A.Y. 02-03 TO A.Y. 07-08. HE ALSO NOTED THAT FOR A.Y 02-03, APART FROM CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS, LD. CIT(A) HAD ALSO MADE ENHANCEMENT. HE ACCORDINGLY, AFTER HOLDING, THAT TH E SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE TO BE EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS AND AFTER RELYING ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 02-03 MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,69,64,927/- ON AC COUNT OF DEFICIT/EXCESS CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIALS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDE R OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED TH E ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 2.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND THE SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY MY DECI SION IN THE EARLIER YEAR (I.E. A. YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08), WHEREIN I HAVE HELD THAT THE HO N'BLE ITAT HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A. O. ON THE BASIS OF STANDARD INPUT OU TPUT RATIO OF CONSUMPTION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ITAT AND FOLLOWING MY DECISION IN A. Y. 2007-08 ON THE ISSUE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A. O . IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REV ENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A.O. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE A.O AND LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR A.Y. 05-06 AN D AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE HAD PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. HONBLE TRIBUNAL BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR A.Y. 04-05 TO 06-07 DATED 05.06.2015 HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HE POINTED TO T HE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE ORDER. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IN EARLIER YEAR HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH OF TRIBUNAL AND ITA NO. 1519 /AHD/2012 . A.Y.2008-09 4 THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEING SIMILAR TO THAT OF EARL IER YEARS, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED. HE THUS SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEE N MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIT/EXCESS CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERI ALS ON THE BASIS OF STANDARD INPUT OUTPUT RATIO OF CONSUMPTION. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 04-05 TO 06-07 AND AFTER RELYING ON THE EARLIE R DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE F OR A.Y. 2002-2003 HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4. NEXT ISSUE IN REVENUES APPEAL IS WITH REGARDS T O ADDITION OF RS.2,52,05,652/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIT/EXCESS CONSUMPTION OF RA W MATERIALS. THIS AMOUNT INCLUDE ADDITION OF RS.73,43,999/- ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATION OF PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL AND ADDITION OF RS.1,77,61,653/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS. AS BOTH THE GROUNDS RELATE TO COMMON IS SUE, THE SAME WERE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSE WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF BULK DRUGS AND THAT IN ASSESSMENT OF A.Y. 2004-05 A DDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN ACTUAL CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL AN D STANDARD CONSUMPTION PRESCRIBED UNDER EXIM INPUT AND OUTPUT NORMS. ASSESSING OFFIC ER ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF VARIATION BETWEEN ACTUAL CONSUMPTION AND THE STANDA RD CONSUMPTION. AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN IN ANNEXURE-II TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSES SING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS SHORT CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL OF RS.L,77,61,653 /- AND EXCESS CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIALS OF RS.74,43,999/-. ASSESSING OFFICER REFE RRED TO ASSESSMENT ORDER OF A.Y. 2002- 03 AND THE STATEMENT OF SRI R.S. SHARMA, THE THEN G ENERAL MANAGER (WORKS) AND ADDITION MADE FOR THAT YEAR OF RS.89,L0,724/-. AFTER RELYIN G ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF EARLIER YEARS, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2, 52,05,652/-. 4.1MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY WHEREIN CIT(A) GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF ITAT FOR A.Y. 2002-03, WHEREIN ISSUE H AS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSE, ITA NO. 1519 /AHD/2012 . A.Y.2008-09 5 WHEREBY HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,52,05,652/- . THE SAID ORDER OF ITAT IN ITA NO. 554/AHD/2006 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 HAS BEEN ANNEXED BEFO RE US, WHEREIN VIDE PARA 41 &42 HAS DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 41 FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS NA RRATED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 2.2 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPEL LANT, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND FACTS OF THE CASE CAREFULLY. FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT IS MANUFACTURING MEDICINES WHICH ARE BEIN G EXPORTED. THE QUALITY CONTROL OF THESE DRUGS IS OF HIGH STANDARDS AND THE COMPOSITION OF THE DRUGS WILL HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED AS PER THE PRESCRIBED NORMS A ND OF INTERNATIONALLY QUALITY. FOR A PARTICULAR MEDICINE WHICH IS TO BE EXPORTED T HE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS PRESCRIBED THE; INPUT RATIO OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIAL WHICH HAVE BEEN PRINTED ON THE VARIOUS SALE INVOICES WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED BY THE APPELLANT. AS THERE WAS NOT OF VARIATION IN THE RATIO, TO KNOW THE EXAC T CONSUMPTION OF THE RAW MATERIAL THE STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER (WORK S) NAMELY SHRI R S SHARMA WHO IS THE IN-CHARGE OF PRODUCTION WAS RECORDED. AS HE WAS THE IN-CHARGE OF PRODUCTION HIS STATEMENT WOULD DETERMINE THE ACTUAL CONSUMPTION OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIAL FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PARTICULAR MEDICINE. THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON PAGE 10 & 11. HE HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED IN REPLY TO VARIOUS QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN PUT-U P BY THE AO THAT THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIALS IS EXACTLY IN ACCORDAN CE TO THE INPUT OUTPUT RATIO PRESCRIBED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND PRINTED IN THE SAL E INVOICES, IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.5, 6, AND 8 HE HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIO NED THAT THE PRODUCTION OF EXPORT ITEMS IS AS PER THE STANDARD NORMS AND THESE INPUTS ARE ALSO MENTIONED AT THE BOTTOM OF EXPORT SALES INVOICE, IN REPLY TO QUE STION NO.8 HE HAS AGAIN CONFIRMED THAT PRODUCTION OF THE ITEM IS AS PER THE STANDARD NORMS AND THE INPUTS ARE USED AS PER THE STANDARD USAGE MENTIONED AT THE BOTTOM OF SALES BILLS. IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ANY VARIATION IN THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL HE WOULD HAVE MENTIONED THE SAME BEFORE THE AO. EVEN OTHERWISE FO R THE FORMULATION OF MEDICINE THE STANDARD INPUT OUTPUT RATIO WILL HAVE TO BE ADHERED TO. HE HAS NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OF THE REPLY TO THE QUESTION THAT THERE WAS ANY VARIATION BETWEEN THE STANDARD INPUT AND OUTPUT RATIO IN THE CONSUMPT ION OF THE RAW MATERIALS. THEREFORE, HIS STATEMENT WHO CONTROLS THE PRODUCTIO N CERTIFIES THAT THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL HAS BEEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD INPUT OUTPUT RATIO. THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION THAT THE C ONSUMPTION DEPENDS ON VARIOUS FACTORS LIKE EFFICIENCY OF THE PLANT AND PROCESS INVOLVED IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOU GHT BECAUSE THE PRODUCTION MANAGER WHO IS THE IN-CHARGE OF PRODUCTION HAS NOWHERE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS EVEN SLIGHT VARIATION IN CO NSUMPTION FROM THE STANDARD INPUT OUTPUT RATIO. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT PROV ED WITH ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE CONSUMPTION HAS BEEN DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF FACTO RS MENTIONED BY IT. THEREFORE, THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL WILL HAVE TO BE COM PARED VIS A VIS THE STANDARD INPUT OUTPUT RATIO AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION OF GIVING MARGIN OF 10% CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF GENERAL MANAGER. AFTER COMPARING THE STANDARD INPUT AND OUTPUT RATIO AND ACTUAL CONSUMPTION, IT W AS FOUND THAT THERE WAS A ITA NO. 1519 /AHD/2012 . A.Y.2008-09 6 DEFICIENCY OF CERTAIN RAW MATERIAL OF RS.63,04,605/ - AND THERE WAS EXCESS CONSUMPTION SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT OF OTHER RAW MAT ERIALS AS RS. 1,32,57,449/-. AS THE DEFICIT AND EXCESS IS OF DIFFERENT RAW MATER IALS, THERE CANNOT BE OFFSET AGAINST EACH OTHER AS HAS BEEN DONE BY AO IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT'S ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT RECORD ARE BEING EXAMINED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND SALES TAX DEPARTMENT IS OF NO RELEVA NCE BECAUSE THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE ACTUAL PRODUC TION AND LEVY OF EXCISE DUTY RATHER THAN TO EXAMINE THE EXCESS OR DEFICIENCY OF THE RAW MATERIAL WHICH HAS BEEN WORKED OUT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STANDARD INPUT OUTPUT RATIO. APPELLANT'S ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT IT DID NOT HAVE ANY MOTIVE IN SUPPRESSING THE INCOME BECAUSE MOST OF THE INCOME IS EXEMPT U/S 80HHC OF T HE I.T. ACT IS ALSO OF NO RELEVANCE BECAUSE THE INCOME WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUT ED ON THE BASIS OF ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF MOTIVE OF THE APPELLANT AND BENEFIT OF SECTION 80HHC WILL BE GIVE N AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT PROVED WITH ANY OTHER EV IDENCE THAT THE CONSUMPTION HAS BEEN DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF FACTORS MENTIONED BY IT. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE DEFICIENCY AND THE ALLEGED EXTRA CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL VIS-A-VIS THE STA NDARD INPUT OUTPUT RATIO IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION MANAGER WHO HAS STRICTLY CONFIRMED THAT THE RAW MATERIAL HAS BEEN CONSUMED AS PER STANDARD INPUT OUTPUT RATIO,' ON THESE FACTS, THE CIT(A) FINALLY ENHANCED THE ADD ITION VIDE PARA 2.2.3, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 2.2.3 FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD AND THE ABOVE DISCUS SION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN LESS CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN INP UT RAW MATERIAL OF RS.63,04,605/- AND THE ONLY INFERENCE IS THE SAME H AVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE ADDED AS THE INVESTMENT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND THE APPELLANT HAS SHOW N MORE CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN ITEMS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,32,57,449/- WHI CH HAS NOT BEEN CONSUMED AND THEREFORE, THE PURCHASED TO THIS EXTENT HAVE BEEN I NFLATED TO REDUCE THE PROFIT OF THE COMPANY. THUS THE TOTAL ADDITION WHICH IS LIABL E TO BE MADE IS RS.1,95,62,054/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITION OF RS.89,10,074/-, THE INCOME WHICH IS TO BE FURTHER ENHANCED IS RS.1,06,51,333/- . THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ENHANCE THE INCOME BY RS.1,06,51,980/- ACCORDING LY THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED WITH DIRECTION TO ENHANCE THE INCOME BY RS.1,06,51, 980/-.' THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED THE TR IBUNAL'S DECISION, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S GUJARAT WOOLEN FELT MIL LS (SUPRA) HAS HELD VIDE PARA 5 AS UNDER: '5 WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERED THE RIV AL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS TRUE THAT NO RECORDS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AFT ER CARDING STAGE THAT BY ITSELF IS NOT A GROUND FOR MAKING ADDITION AND TREATING TH E PRODUCTION AT THE CARDING STAGE AS FINAL. THE DIFFERENCE OF 11,506 KG IS DUE TO WASTAGE IN THE PRODUCTION APPROXIMATELY 13% OF THE PRODUCTION AND LOOKING TO THE STANDARD FIXED BY THE HANDBOOK OF THE PROCEDURES, THE PERCENTAGE OF WASTA GE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ITA NO. 1519 /AHD/2012 . A.Y.2008-09 7 EXCESSIVE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, PARTICULARLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSES HAS MADE A FALSE CLAIM OF WASTAGE, WHICH IN ANY CASE IS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS LAID DOWN UNDER T HE EXCISE DUTY EXEMPTION SCHEME, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE TO THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) IS BASED ON THE PRODUCTION REGISTER UP TO THE CARDING STAGE IS INCOMPLETE OR P ARTIAL STAGE OF THE MATERIAL AND, THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INCOMPLETE A ND PARTIAL EFFECT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. THE CIT(A), IN OUR OPINION, WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE.' 42. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE FACTS AS NARRATED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH ARE UNDISPUTED, AS WELL AS THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ADOPTED THE NOR MS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STANDARD INPUT AND OUTPUT RATIO OF CONSUMPTION BUT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER OF HAD IT IMPO RTED THE RAW MATERIAL AS PER THE INPUT OUTPUT NORMS. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS CLAIMED TH AT IT HAS CONSUMED LESS THAN WHAT IS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INPUT OUTPUT NORMS. THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY RELIED ON THE INPUT OUTPUT CONSUMPTION RATIO AND THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL WHAT WAS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S GUJ ARAT WOOLEN FELT MILLS (SUPRA), RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRI BUNAL, WE DELETE THE ADDITION AND ALLOW THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN ITAT IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR A.Y. 03-04 & 04-05. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, FACT S BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,52,05,652/- MADE ON AC COUNT OF DEFICIT/EXCESS CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIALS. 8. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY CONTRARY BIN DING DECISION IN ITS SUPPORT NOR HAS PLACED ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO DE MONSTRATE THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BY HIGHER AUTHORI TIES. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS, WE FIND NO R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THE GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1519 /AHD/2012 . A.Y.2008-09 8 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 04 - 12 - 2015 . SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD