Radha Krishna Propr. Hori Lal Rajesh Kumar, Hardoi V. Income Tax Officer, Hardoi

ITA 163/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 16323714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARE AS UNDER SHRI Y P SRIVAS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.160/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, HARDOI. VS. SHRI RADHA KRISHNA, PROP. HORI LAL RAJESH KUMAR & KRISHNA INDUSTRIES, SITAPUR ROAD, HARDOI. PAN:ABGPK7410P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.163/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 SHRI RADHA KRISHNA, PROP. HORI LAL RAJESH KUMAR & KRISHNA INDUSTRIES, SITAPUR ROAD, HARDOI. PAN:ABGPK7410P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HARDOI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 05/01/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: REVENUE BY SHRI Y.P. SRIVASTAVA, D.R. ASSESSEE BY SHRI YOGESH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 03/03/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 4 /04/2014 2 1. THAT THE LOWER COURTS WERE NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.9,01,100/ - IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE BRAN. 2. THAT THE ADDITION IN CLOSING STOCK OF RICE BRAN CONFIRMED AT RS.9,01,000/ - BY LEARNED CIT(A) IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND UNCALLE D FOR. THE RATES APPLIED @RS.700/ - PER QUINTAL BY CIT(A) ARE EXCESSIVE AS AGAINST @RS.460/ - PER QUINTAL SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.27,02,736/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE BRAN BY APPLYING RATE @RS.700/ - PER QUINTAL OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE BRAN OF 7,507.60 QUINTAL I.E. RS.52,55,320/ - AGAINST THE C LOSING STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.25,52,584/ - . THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS NARRATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS W RONGLY ALLOWED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,90,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE KHANDA BY APPLYING RATES @RS.705/ - OF 2000 QUINTAL IN PLACE OF RS.560/ - AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. (14,10,000 11,20,000) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT APP RECIATED THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS NARRATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED THE ADDITION OF RS.81,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD IN RICE BRAN BY APPLYING RATES 7.5 IN PLACE OF RATE S 7% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE OF 27,000 QUINTAL. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,15,300/ - ON ACCOUNT OF WHEAT WAGES CHARGES BY APPLYING RATES @RS.15/ - PER QUINTAL WEIGHING 3,654.80 QUINTALS IN PLACE OF RS.56.97 PAISE AS SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WORKS OUT RS.1,53,400/ - (2,08,222 - 54,822). 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED THE ADDITION OF RS.8,66,096/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BARDANA CONSUMED. 3 6. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 7. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY HIM FOR WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PART ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IS HIGHLY EXCES SIVE AND UNCALLED FOR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS. 8 TO 17 ARE THE DETAILS OF SALE BILLS OF DAGI RICE BRAN, WHICH WERE SOLD AT A VERY LOW RATE OF RS.210/ - PER QUINTAL AND HENCE , THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.27,02,736/ - WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALLEGED UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE BRAN AND FOR THIS PURPOSE , HE HAS VALUED THE CLOSING STOCK @RS.700/ - PER QUINTAL. WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE, THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE RICE BRAN SHOULD BE VALUED AT RS.460/ - PER QUINTAL AND NOT AT RS.700/ - PER QUINTAL AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR AT RS.340/ - PER QUINTAL AS HAS BEEN VALUED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER: THESE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. WERE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE OPENING STOCK FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WAS CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE STOCK OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07. THIS STOCK (OPENING STOCK OF F.Y. 2008 - 09) WAS BOUND TO BE SOLD IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. THAT THE SALE BILLS OF THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR WERE NOT RELEVANT FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE BRAN WAS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE SAME OLD STO CK OF RICE BRAN WAS SOLD IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE PURPOSE OF SUBMISSION OF THESE BILLS WAS TO 4 SUPPORT HIS BASIS OF VALUATION OF THE STOCK. HE IGNORED THOSE SALE BILLS OF RICE BRAN WHEREIN THE SALE VALUE WAS FURTHER REDUCED BY THE BUYERS ON ACCOUNT OF LE SS RECOVERY OF OIL. IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THE SALE BILLS OF RICE BRAN TO SETHIA OIL INDUSTRIES LTD., LAKHINLPUR BYPASS ROAD, SITAPUR AND K.C. EDIBLE OILS PVT. LTD., SHAHJAHANPUR THAT BOTH THESE BUYERS REDUCED THE SALE VALUE FROM THE SALE BILLS ON THE GROUND OF LESS RECOVERY OF OIL FROM THE SOLD RICE BRAN. THIS EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. WHICH, IT APPEARS, WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE BRAN. HE MADE ONLY AN OBSERVATION AGAINST THIS DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE THAT THESE BILLS WERE NOT RELEVANT AS THEY PERTAINED TO THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR AND THAT NO ORIGINAL BILLS WERE PRODUCED. HOWEVER, PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS REVEALED THAT THE ORIGINAL BILLS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. COPIES OF THESE BILLS WERE FURNISHED IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO PRODUCED THE ORIGINAL BILL BOOK FOR VERIFICATION. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY CONCLUSIVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE BASIS OF VALOUATION OF C LOSING STOCK @RS.340/ - PER QT. THE A.O. ALSO DID NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION TO JUSTIFY THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF THE RATE OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE BRAN WHICH WAS HIGHER THAN THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VALUATION OF OPENING S TOCK AND THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE A.O. HIMSELF TO WORK OUT THE VALUE OF EXTRA QUANTITY OF FRESH RICE BRAN. HE MADE AN OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF VALUED OPENING STOCK @ RS. 600/ - PER QT. AND THAT THE RATE OF RICE BRAN DID NOT DEPEND ON ITS OIL CON TENTS. THE A.O. HIMSELF ADOPTED SELLING PRICE OF FRESH RICE BRAN @ RS.600/ - PER QT. TO WORK OUT TOTAL VALUE OF 135 QT. OF EXTRA RICE BRAN WHICH HE ESTIMATED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE CORRECT YIELD OF RICE BRAN FROM CUSTOM HULLING DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS NOTICED FROM PERUSAL OF THE SALE BILLS OF RICE BRAN IN THE SUBSEQUENT Y EAR THAT THE D AGI (DEFECTIVE) RICE BRAN WAS SOLD FOR RS.210/ - , RS.230/ - & RS.240/ - PER QTL. AND OTHER STOCK WAS SOLD @ RS.472/ - , RS. 502/ - AND RS. 520/ - PER QT. AFTER DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM THE SALE BILLS BY THE BUYERS ON THE GROUND OF LESS RECOVE RY OF OIL. SIMILARLY, HE FURNISHED COPY OF SALE BILLS OF RICE BRAN SHOWING RATE OF SALE AT RS.418/ - AND RS.447/ - . THEREFORE, IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO HOW THE A.O. ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS.700/ - PER QT. FOR OLD RICE BRAN AS AGAINST THE RATE OF RS. 600/ - PER QT. WHICH HE DETERMINED OF THE FRESH RICE BRAN. TH E 5 ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE ANY FACTUAL OR SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO WORK OUT THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT PROVE BEFORE THE A.O. OR AT THE APPELLATE STAGE WITH ANY CONVINCING MATERIAL EVI DENCE THE BASIS OF VALUATION OF STOCK OF RICE BRAN. THEREFORE, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONTENTS OF THE ORDER, SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND POSITION OF LAW ON THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATED ADDITION, IT IS MY CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RESTRICT ESTIMATED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK TO RS.9,01,000/ - WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.460/ - PER QUINTAL. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY HIM THAT SOME DEFECTIVE RICE BRAN WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE RS.210/ - , RS.230/ - & RS.240/ - PER Q UINTAL AND OTHER STOCK WAS SOLD @ RS.472/ - , RS.502/ - AND RS.520/ - PER QT. AFTER DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM THE SALE BILLS BY THE BUYERS ON THE GROUND OF LESS RECOVERY OF OIL. ON THE BASIS OF THIS, IT WAS HELD BY HIM THAT IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO HOW THE A.O. ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS.700/ - PER QT. FOR OLD RICE BRAN AS AGAINST THE RAT E OF RS. 600/ - PER QT. WHICH HE DETERMINED OF THE FRESH RICE BRAN. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) TO THIS EXTENT. THEREAFTER, CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE CLOSING STOCK SHOULD BE VALUED AT RS.460/ - PER QUINTAL BUT HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR THE SAME. IF WE WORK OUT THE AVERAGE PRICE OF L OWEST SALE PRICE AND HIGHEST PRICE NOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE ABOVE PARA I.E. RS.210 AND RS.520/ - PER QUINTAL, THE AVERAGE COMES TO RS.365/ - PER QUINTAL. AS PER THE COPY OF VARIOUS SALE BILLS AVAIL ABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK ALSO, THE SAME SALE RATES ARE COMING OUT. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL THAT IT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE CLOSING STOCK OF OLD RICE BRAN IS VALUED AT RS.365/ - PER QUINTAL BEING THE AVERAGE SALE PRICE NOTED ABOVE AS AGAINST RS.340/ - PER QUINTAL BEING THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK AND RS.700/ - PER QUINTAL ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VALUE THE OLD RICE 6 BRAN. HENCE, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IN ITS APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. THERE IS NO OTHER ISSUE RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 8. IN GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.2.90 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE KHANDA, WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY CIT(A). ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, THE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGE NOS. 20 TO 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS A DETAIL REGARDING SALE OF RICE KHANDA IN THE PRESENT YEAR. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE RICE KHANDA IS OUT OF OPENING STOCK ONLY BECAUSE THERE WAS OPENING STOCK OF 3,000 QUINTAL OUT OF WHICH 979.89 QUINTAL WAS SOLD DURING THE PRESENT YEAR AND THE CLOSING STOCK WAS LEFT TO THE EXTENT OF 2020 QUINTAL. THE CLOSI NG STOCK WAS VALUED @RS.705/ - PER QUINTAL BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS VALUED THE CLOSING STOCK @RS560/ - PER QUINTAL BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE CLOSING STOCK SHOULD NOT BE VALUED LOWER THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED IN THE OPENING STOCK AND MADE ADDITION OF ITS DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION RATE OF RS.145/ - PER QUINTAL. W HEN WE WORK OUT THE AVERAGE SALE PRICE OF RICE KHANDA DURING THE PRESENT YEAR, WE FIND THAT A VALUE OF RS.5,88,060/ - WAS REALIZED ON SALE OF 979.80 QUINTAL DURING THE PRESENT YEAR AND THE AVERAGE OF THIS COMES TO RS.600/ - PER QUINTAL. HENCE, IN OUR CONSID ERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE CAN VALUE THE CLOSING STOCK AT AVERAGE SALE PRICE BECAUSE THIS IS ACCEPTED NORMS OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK BECAUSE THE SAME CAN BE VALUED AT COST OR MARKET PRICE WHICHEVER IS LOW ER . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE VALUE OF OPENING STOCK CAN BE CONSIDERED AS COST IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THE AVERAGE SALE PRICE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS MARKET PRICE OF THIS ITEM AND, THEREFORE, THE MARKET PRICE BEING LOWER THAN THE COST PRICE, THE CLOSING STOCK CAN BE VALUED 7 AT THE MARKET PRICE BEING RS.600 / - PER QUINTAL. IN ADDITION TO THIS, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) ON PAGE NO. 14 THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM THAT THE SALE PRICE OF RS.600/ - PER QUINTAL IN DECEMBER, 2007 INCLUDED EXPENSES OF BARDANA, SUTLI, TAXES AND WAGES ETC. AND, THEREFORE, IF THESE EXPENSES ARE REDUCED FROM THE SALE PRICE, THE NET REALIZED RATE COMES TO RS.560/ - PER QUINTAL AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS APPEARS VERY REASONABLE AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISS UE. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 10. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.81,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALLEGED LOW YIELD OF RICE BRAN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY CIT(A). ON TH IS ISSUE ALSO, LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NECESSARY DOCUMENTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE BEING THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET IS AVAILABLE ON P AGES 25 TO 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED ON THE BASIS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THESE FACTS THAT THE RECOVERY OF RICE BRAN IN EARLIER YEARS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AT 7% AND IN OTHER CASES OF RICE MILLERS ALSO, THE RECOVERY OF 7% HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND HE HAS NOTED TWO NAMES OF SUCH RICE MILLERS I.E. M/ S MANISH FOOD PRODUCTS AND M/S MAA LALTEY INDUSTRIES. LEARNED D.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FINDING OF CIT(A) AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS ALSO REJECTED. 12. GRO UND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.15,300/ - REGARDING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WAGES, WHICH IS DELETED BY CIT(A). 8 13. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION IS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THA T THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF EXPENSES CONSISTED OF WAGES OF RS.48,830/ - , CASH AND QUALITY DISCOUNT OF RS.51,108/ - AND COST OF BARDANA USED IN THE PACKING OF RICE AND WHEAT OF RS.1,08,284/ - TOTALING TO RS.2,08,222/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE AVERAGE RATE OF WAGES AT RS.56.96 PER QUINTAL BY ADOPTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.2,08,222/ - INSTEAD OF RS.48,830/ - BEING WAGES AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH AND QUALITY DISCOUNT AND BARDANA COST. IF THE AVERAGE RATE OF WAGES IS WORKED OUT BY ADOPTING WAGE S AMOUNT OF RS.48, 830/ - , T HE RESULTANT RATE WILL NOT BE HIGH. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 15. THE REMAINING ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 5 IS ON ACCOUNT OF BARDANA CONSUMED, WHICH IS DELETED BY CIT(A). 16. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER CIT(A). 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.8,66,096/ - WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED 39,368 KATTI S FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING RICE AND WHEAT. HE HAS VALUED THESE KATTIS @RS.22/ - PER KATTI. AS AGAINST THIS, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT SALE OF RICE AND WHEAT WERE WITHOUT KATTIS AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT 9 JUSTIFIED. THIS FINDING OF CIT(A) IS ON THE BASIS TH AT AS PER THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION, WHER E THE SALE OF RICE OR WHEAT IS WITHOUT KATTIS, ONLY NET WEIGHT IS SHOWN IN THE BILL AND WHER E THE SAME IS WITH KATTIS, THE GROSS WEIGHT IS SHOWN IN THE BILL. HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED C OPY OF ALL THESE BILLS AND IT IS SEEN THAT ONLY NET WEIGHT IS MENTIONED ON THESE BILLS ESTABLISHING THAT NO KATTIS WERE USED FOR THESE SALES. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FINDING OF CIT(A) AND HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALSO REJECTED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 4 /04/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR