Income-tax Officer, V. M/s. Mauli Steel Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

ITA 2021/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1635 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 69C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO. 2021 /PN/201 4 / ASSESSM ENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3), JALNA . / APPELLANT VS. M/S. MAULI STEEL PVT. LTD., C - 15, ADDL. MIDC AREA, JALNA . / RESPONDENT PAN : AABCM6718R / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 15 . 0 6 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 . 0 6 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT (A) , AURANGABAD , DATED 27 . 08 .20 1 4 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2 . DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION W AS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDERS OF ITA NO. 2021 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. MAULI STEEL PVT. LTD. 2 TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, H ENCE, IT IS PROCEED ED TO D ISPOSE OF PRESENT APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN QUANTIFYING THE SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION @ 4% EVEN AFTER ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE INDULGED IN CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GOODS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TAXES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT MANUFACTURING AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE S ON THE UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION WORKED OUT IN THE APPELLATE ORDER HAD ALREADY BEEN BORNE BY THE PRODUCTION SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ? 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT T HAT THE WORKING CAPITAL IS REQUIRED FOR PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL AND DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES FOR PRODUCTION OF GOODS EVERY YEAR. 4. THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED AND THAT OF THE CIT(A) BE VACATED. 4. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS AGAINST D ELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION. 5. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF MS INGOTS / BILLETS. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSUMED 2,04,67,125 ELECTRICITY UNITS AND HAD PRO DUCED GOODS TO THE EXTENT OF 19,646 MT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS @ 1026 ELECTRICITY UNITS PER TON AT 19,948 MT AND ARRIVED AT SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION OF 302 MT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION AND MADE ADDITION AT RS. 24,09,278/ - . 6. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THA T NO ADDITION WAS WARRANTED ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING VARIOUS REASONS: - ITA NO. 2021 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. MAULI STEEL PVT. LTD. 3 (1) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE AUDITED UNDER COMPANIES ACT AS WELL AS INCOME TAX ACT. IN SOME OF THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL, IN SOME OF THE CASES OF MS INGOTS/BILLETS MANU FACTURERS THE SCRUTINY U/S 143(3) FOR EARLIER YEARS WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT ANY ADDITION TOWARDS SUPPRESSED SALE. (2) CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT VIDE ITS ORDER HAS SIMPLY & INCORRECTLY ESTIMATED THAT FOR MANUFACTURING ONE METRIC TON MS INGOT, 1026 UNITS OF ELECTRICITY ARE REQUIRED. (3) THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE IS BASED ON ESTIMATES, ACADEMIC STUDY AND THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS AND HENCE IS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CESTAT. (4) THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAS ACTUALLY VERIFIE D ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN APPELLANT'S PLANT WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE WORKED OUT THE ELECTRICITY UNITS REQUIRED FOR PRODUCING ONE METRIC TON MS INGOTS/BILLETS BY ACTUAL PHYSICAL VERIFICATION IN THE PLANTS OF V ARIOUS MANUFACTURERS. (5) THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE IN ITS ORDER ON THE REPORT OF I.I.T., KANPUR AND TECHNICAL REPORT OF DR.BATRA IS MISPLACED AS THE COPIES OF THE SAID REPORTS WERE NEITHER GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT NOR ANY CROSS EXAMINATION WAS ALLOWED. (6) THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALL INDIA FURNACE ASSOCIATION VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 18/03/2008 HAS STATED THAT THE HIGHER CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY CAN BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO LIGHT SCRAP AND SPONGE IRON ET C . REASONS. (7) THE EX CISE DEPARTMENT HAS CONSIDERED ENTIRE ELECTRICITY UNITS FOR PRODUCTION WHEREAS ABOUT 75% UNITS ARE CONSUMED FOR FURNACE I.E. FOR PRODUCTION. (8) THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SR J PEETY (8) THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SR J PEETY STEELS PVT. LT D. (2011) 137 TT] 62 7 (PUNE) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF TECHNICAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION FORMULA. (9) THE AO. HAS OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS THAT THE UNIT CAPACITY INCLUDES USAGE OF FURNACE LOAD OR AUXILIARY LOA D; A 6 MT FURNACE WILL CONSUME SLIGHTLY MORE POWER THAN 25 MT FURNACE PER METRIC TON OF PRODUCTION; A CONTINUOUS CASTING PROCESS USES MORE ELECTRICITY, HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. (10) THE UND ISCLOSED PRODUCTION CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS PER VARIOUS DECISIONS UNDER EXCISE ACT AND ALSO INCOME TAX ACT RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANTS. SOME OF THE DECISIONS HEAVILY RELIED ON ARE R.A CASTINGS VS. COMMISSION ER OF EXCISE, MEERAT - I 2009 (237) ELT 674; THIS DECISION IS UPHOLD BY THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT; NASHIK STRIPS PVT. LTD . VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK 2010 - TIOL - 1110 - CESTAT (MUM); BHAVSHAKTI STEEL MINES P.L. VS. C C E, NASHIK ORDER NOS.35 6 - 357/11/EB/C - II , CESTAT, MUMBAI DATED 08/04/2011. (11) THE COST OF PRODUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IS JUSTIFIED AS SIMILAR COST OF PRODUCTION HAS BEEN SHOWN BY OTHER MORE THAN 15 COMPANIES MANUFACTURING THE SAME PRODUCTS IN J ALNA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SINCE 1985. 7. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT IN ESTIMATION OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION OF 302 MT IN THE YEAR, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THIRD MEMBER OF CESTAT ORDER DATED 17.07.2014 IN THE CASE OF OTHER STEEL MANUFACTURERS OF ITA NO. 2021 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. MAULI STEEL PVT. LTD. 4 JALNA AND SURROUNDIN G AREAS. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS AND APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. AS AGAINST THE PRODUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 19,646 MT, THE PRODUCTION WORKED OUT WA S 19,948 MT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS A MEAGER PERCENTAGE OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT IN REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION. THE CIT(A) AL SO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,51,391/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF WORKING CAPITAL UTILIZED FOR SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION. 8. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON BOTH THE ISSUES. 9. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, I T IS F OU ND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HA D ARISEN IN BUNCH OF APPEALS WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON VARIOUS DATES. HOWEVER, FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE, REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE, REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN CONSOLIDATED ORDER WITH LEAD ORDER IN SHIVSHAKTI RE - ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA 1884/PN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 , WHEREIN IDENTICAL ISSUE OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF VARIATION IN CONSUMPTION OF EL ECTRICITY AROSE AND RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RE - ROLLING MILLS I.E. SHREE OM ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT IN ITA NOS.125 & 127/PN/2012 AND CROSS APPEALS IN ITA NOS.430 & 431/PN/2012, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2015 HAD CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH VIDE PARAS 54 TO 87 AND VIDE PARAS 88 AND 89, THE TRIBUNAL HAD DELETED THE ADDITION ON BOTH COUNTS I.E. ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION AND ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN PURC HASES , WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 88. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT NO EXTRAPOLATION OF SALES FOR 300 DAYS CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ITA NO. 2021 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. MAULI STEEL PVT. LTD. 5 ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE FOUND FOR CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF MATERIA L WITHOUT PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY FOR FEW DAYS, WHICH IN TURN, HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF FILING PETITION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, WHICH IN TURN, HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. MERELY BECAUSE THE SETTLEMENT C OMMISSION ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF ADDITIONAL EXCISE DUTY PAYABLE ON THE SAID CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL WITHOUT PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID FIGURES OF ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION SHOULD BE UT ILIZED FOR EXTRAPOLATING THE SALES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME ON THE SAID CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL WITHOUT PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY, WHICH IS TO BE ADDED AS INCOME IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IN CASE THE SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME HAS NOT BEEN ADDED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS, THE SAME MAY BE DIREC TED TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE IN RESPECTIVE YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY FROM THE RECORDS FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AND INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH ADMITTED CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL WITHOUT PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY, BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION OR BEFORE THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES, IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD BUNCH OF APPEALS AND IN SOME YEARS, THERE IS NO ADMISSION OF CLANDESTINE REM OVAL OF MATERIAL WITHOUT PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY AND IN THOSE YEARS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AND / OR ANY INVESTIGATION OR INQUIRY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO COLLECT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, BY WAY OF EXTRAPOLATION OF SALES FOR 300 DAYS ON ACCOUNT OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND IN ANY PRECEDING OR SUCCEEDING YEARS. FURTHER, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHERE NO PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN ANY OF THE RESPECTIVE YEARS OR BEFORE THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES. EXCISE AUTHORITIES. 89. SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON BOTH ACCOUNTS I.E. ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ERRATIC CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRI CITY AND ADDITION PROPOSED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND FOR THE PART OF THE YEAR OF CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL WITHOUT PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY, NEXT ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASES FOR EFFECTING SUC H SALES WHICH GOODS HAVE BEEN CLANDESTINELY REMOVED, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASES UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 10. THEREAFTER, CORRIGEN DUM ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL SUBSTITUTING PARA 88 OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 17.02.2016 AND IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT BY AN ERROR, THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 88 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO FROM LINE 17 TO 22, NEEDS CORRECTION TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS EQUIVALENT TO PROFITS ON SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION @ 4% OR ACTUAL GP RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICHEVER WAS HIGHER. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE PASS THIS CORRIGENDUM ORDER AND THE PARA 88 I.E. FROM LINE 17 TO 22 WOULD NOW BE SUBSTITUTED BY FOLLOWING PARA. 88. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME ON THE SAID CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL WITHOUT PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY, WHIC H IS TO BE ADDED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IN CASE THE SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME HAS NOT BEEN ADDED WHILE COMPUTING ITA NO. 2021 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. MAULI STEEL PVT. LTD. 6 THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RESP ECTIVE YEARS, THE SAME MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE IN RESPECTIVE YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY FROM THE RECORDS FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AND INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT O F SUCH ADMITTED CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL WITHOUT PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY, BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION OR BEFORE THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES, IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY FROM THE RECORDS FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AND INCLUDE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, THE ADDITIONAL INCOME @ 4% OR ACTUAL G.P. RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THAT YEAR, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, ON VALUE OF SUCH ADMITTED CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF MATERIAL WITHOUT PA YMENT OF EXCISE DUTY, BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE THE REQUISITE DETAILS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE H ANDS OF ASSESSEE IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. 11. THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN SHREE OM ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT (SUPRA). FURTHER, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NEITHER INVESTIGATION BY THE DG CEI NOR ANY SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION HAS BEEN DETECTED AND ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MOVED ANY PETITION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION OR ANY OTHER EXCISE AUTHORITIES. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ALLEGED REMOVAL OF GOODS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY, MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION IN THE EARLIER YEARS I.E. RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 6 - 07 AND 2007 - 08, THERE IS NO MERIT IN MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2015 WITH LEAD ORDER IN SHREE OM ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. A DDL. CIT (SUPRA) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DELETE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BY THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTEN T OF 4% OF THE SAID ALLEGED PRODUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION BY ITA NO. 2021 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. MAULI STEEL PVT. LTD. 7 APPLYING GP RATE OF 4% ON THE ALLEGED PRODUCTION OF SALE ARE ALLOWED. FURTHER, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN QUANTIFYING THE SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION @ 4% AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF WORKING CAPITAL ARE DISMISSED. 1 2 . IN VIEW OF DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOU NT O F SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION, THERE IS NO MERIT IN ANY ADDITION BEING MADE ON ACCOUNT OF WORKING CAPITAL REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED PRODUCTION. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JUNE , 201 6 . SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 30 TH JUNE , 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPO NDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) , AURANGABAD ; 4. / THE CIT, AURANGABAD ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE