ITO 9(2)(2), MUMBAI V. KEVAL KAAUSHAL IMPEX P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2350/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48407 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY MEHTA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAV AN, JM I.T.A.NO.2350/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-9(2)(2), R.NO. 225, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN,M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. VS. M/S. KEVAL KAUSHAL IMPEX PVT. LTD., 3, BHAT CHAWL, STATION ROAD, GOREGAON (W), MUMBAI 400 062. PAN: AAACK 2620 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY SHANKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, AM: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-20, MUMBAI, DA TED 4 TH JANUARY, 2010, WHEREBY HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 80,97,70 8/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTI ON ALLEGEDLY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING READYMADE GARMENTS. THE R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 30.10.2006 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,43,576/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION AT ABOUT 75% OF THE TOTAL SALES WAS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN THE RAW-M ATERIAL CONSUMPTION OF 33% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. HE, THEREFORE, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EX PLAIN THE HIGHER RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION SHOWN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN RAW-MATERIA L CONSUMPTION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MAINLY DUE TO LOSS OF GOODS IN THE DELUGE RESULTING FROM HEAVY ITA NO.2350/M/2010 M/S. KEVAL KAUSHAL IMPEX P. LTD. 2 RAIN FALL IN MUMBAI ON 26 TH JULY, 2005. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RAW MATERIAL AND FINISHED GOODS DAMAGED IN THE PROCESS WERE SOLD AT A PRICE MUCH BELOW THE COST PRICE AND IN SOME INSTANCES, THE GOODS WERE DAMAGED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SAME COULD NOT BE SOLD AT ALL. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT THE RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION WAS HIGHER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DUE TO I NCREASE IN THE COST OF RAW MATERIAL AS WELL AS CHANGE IN PRODUCT-MIX. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO FILED THE DETAILS OF CLAIMS MADE WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR THE COMP ENSATION OF THE LOSSES FROM WHICH IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT FI NISHED GOODS WORTH RS.53,56,213/- WERE DESTROYED IN FLOODS. AFTER RED UCING MAKING AND LABOUR CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,48,119/- FROM THE VALUE OF FINISHED GOODS, THE RAW- MATERIAL COMPONENT IN THE FINISHED GOODS DESTROYED IN FLOODS WAS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 47,08,094/- AND AFTER REDUCING THE SAME FROM THE TOTAL RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION OF RS. 2,63,16,160/-, HE C OMPUTED THE RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION AT RS. 2,16,08,066/- WHICH WAS 61.63% OF THE TOTAL SALES OF RS. 3,40,12,229/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. AS THE RAW MAT ERIAL CONSUMPTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, ACC ORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS 33.77%, HE WORKED OUT THE RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPT ION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY ADOPTING THE SAID RATIO AT RS. 1,1 4,85,929/- AND HELD THAT THE RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARRIVED AT RS. 2,16,08,066/- WAS STILL IN EXCESS BY A SUM OF RS.1,01,22,136/-. AFTER GIVING LIVERAGE OF 20% OF THE SAID AMOUNT FOR THE OTHER ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE WHILE EXPLAINING THE INCREASE IN RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION WAS HIGHER BY RS. 80,97,708/- FOR WHICH NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION COULD BE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE FOR RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION TO THAT EXTENT AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 80,97,708/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE AN ITA NO.2350/M/2010 M/S. KEVAL KAUSHAL IMPEX P. LTD. 3 ORDER DATED 29.12.2008. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3), APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE B EFORE LEARNED CIT(A) CHALLENGING THEREIN, INTER ALIA, THE ADDITION OF RS . 80,97,708/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT WAS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GROSS PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ACTUALLY MORE AT 26.64% AS COMPAR ED TO 21.92% SHOWN IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR IN SPITE OF THE LOSS OF GOODS DUE TO FLOOD. AS REGARDS THE WORKING OF EXCESS RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE STOCK OF GOODS LOST AS A RESULT OF FLOOD WAS ACTUALLY RS.1,13,90,272/- AND NOT RS. 53,56,238/- AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TWO SEPAR ATE CLAIMS WERE MADE FOR THE GOODS DAMAGED AT DIFFERENT PREMISES BUT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER CONSIDERED ONLY ONE CLAIM WHILE MAKING HIS WORKING IGNORING TOTALL Y THE OTHER CLAIM. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT WHILE WORKING OUT THE RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AT 33.75%, SUBSTANTIAL D ECREASE IN THE STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IF ALL THESE MISTAKES COMMITTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE CORRECTED, THE RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION SHOWN BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ACTUALLY LOWER THAN THE RAW MATER IAL CONSUMPTION SHOWN IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED EXCESS RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION S MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 80,97,708/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 4 TO 4.4 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDE R. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE DISPUTE. THE TAX AUDIT R EPORT GIVES THE GROSS PROFIT TO TURNOVER PERCENTAGE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AT 26.64% AS COMPARED TO THAT ITA NO.2350/M/2010 M/S. KEVAL KAUSHAL IMPEX P. LTD. 4 AT 21.92% OF LAST YEAR. THIS IS EVEN AFTER VERY HIG H RATIO OF MATERIAL CONSUMED TO FINISHED GOODS AT 7045% DURING THE CURRENT YEAR AS COMPARED TO THAT AT 41.15% LAST YEAR. THE AO IS THEREFORE NOT CORRECT IN HOLDI NG THAT THE APPELLANT HAS INFLATED THE COST OF MATERIAL CONSUMED IN ORDER TO REDUCE ITS GROSS PROFIT. 4.2 THE AO HAS COMPARED THE RATIO OF THE RAW MATER IALS CONSUMED TO THE SALES OF THE CURRENT AND PREVIOUS YEARS. THERE IS BOUND T O BE DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO RATIOS SINCE THERE WAS NO LOSS OF STOCK IN THE PREC EDING YEAR. THE AO HAS DETERMINED THE RATIO OF THE CURRENT YEAR WITHOUT CO NSIDERING THE LOSS OF STOCK AT ONE PREMISES EVEN THOUGH HE HAS BROUGHT TO TAX THE INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE SAID LOSS. THIS HAS DISTORTED THE RATIO ARRIVED AT BY THE AO. HE HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN SET OFF FOR THE MATERIAL CONS UMED IN THE FINISHED AND SEMI FINISHED GOODS LYING IN THE STOCK. THIS HAS FURTHER DISTORTED THE RATIO DETERMINED BY THE AO. IF THESE ERRORS ARE ELIMINATED THE COST OF MATERIAL CONSUMPTION IN THE SALES MADE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR WOULD BE AS UNDE R: (FIGURE S IN RUPEES) MATERIAL CONSUMPTION CLAIMED 2,63,16,160 LESS: MATERIAL CONSUMPTION IN CLOSING STOCK VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK 66,34,863 % OF MATERIAL CONSUMED/FINISH ED GOODS AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT 70.45 COST OF MATERIAL CONSUMED 46,74,260 ADD: MATERIAL CONSUMPTION IN OPENING STOCK VALUE OF OPENING STOCK 23,09,558 % OF MATERIAL CONSUMED/FINISH ED GOODS AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT 70.45 COST OF MATERIAL CONSUMED 16,27,080 2,32,68,980 LESS: MATERIAL CONSUMED IN STOCK DESTROYED IN FLO ODS VALUE OF THE STOCK AT TWO PRE MISES VIDE TWO INSURANCE CLAIMS FABRIC SUITING 20,98,124 FABRIC SHIRTING 10,23,194 GARMENTS 82,68,954 1,13,90,272 LESS: MAKING & LABOUR CHARGES AS ESTIMATED AT 29% BY AO 23,97,996 89,92,276 COST OF MATERIAL CONSUMED IN SALES MADE 1,42,76,704 SALES 3,40,12,299 %AGE OF MATERIAL CONSUMED TO SALES 41.97 4.3. ADOPTING THE SAME METHOD THE MATERIAL CONSUMPT ION IN SALES MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WORKS OUT AS UNDER: ITA NO.2350/M/2010 M/S. KEVAL KAUSHAL IMPEX P. LTD. 5 (FIGURES IN RUP EES) MATERIAL CONSUMPTION CLAIMED 98,53,050 LESS: MATERIAL CONSUMPTION IN CLOSING STOCK VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK 23,09,558 % OF MATERIAL CONSUMED/FINISHED GOODS AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT 41.15 COST OF MATERIAL CONSUMED 9,50,380 ADD: MATERIAL CONSUMPTION IN OPENING STOCK VALUE OF OPENING STOCK 87,24,031 % OF MATERIAL CONSUMED/FINISHED GOODS AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT 41.15 COST OF MATERIAL CONSUMED 35,89,940 1,24,92,610 LESS: MATERIAL CONSUMED IN STOCK DESTROYED IN FLOO DS NIL -------------- COST OF MATERIAL CONSUMED IN SALES MADE 1,24,92,610 SALES 2,84,90,023 %AGE OF MATERIAL CONSUMED TO SALES 43.8 5 4.4. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE TABLES, THAT THE R AW MATERIAL CONSUMED TO SALES RATIO IS 41.97% AS AGAINST 61.63% CALCULATED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, THE SAME FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR IS 43.8 5% AS AGAINST 33.75% TAKEN BY THE AO. THIS SHOWS THAT THERE IS A REDUCTION IN RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION TO SALES RATIO OF THE CURRENT YEAR. THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE COST OF MATERIAL CONSUMED HAD GONE UP CONSIDERABLY HIGHER AS COMPARED TO THAT LAST YEAR. THERE IS, THEREFORE, NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTION OF THE AO TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THIS, I DO NOT CONSID ER IT NECESSARY TO GO INTO WHETHER THE AO WAS RIGHT IN CONCLUDING THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD INTRODUCED BOGUS BILLS OF PURCHASES OR PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS FRO M ELSEWHERE IN ORDER TO INFLATE THE CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL. THE SUM OF RS. 80, 97,708 ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) GIV ING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AS ABOVE, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT 61.63% WAS HIGHER THAN 33.77% SHOW N IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US, THERE WERE, HOWEVER, T WO MAJOR MISTAKES COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE WORKING OUT THE RATI O OF RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. ITA NO.2350/M/2010 M/S. KEVAL KAUSHAL IMPEX P. LTD. 6 FIRSTLY, THE RAW MATERIAL CONSUMPTION RATIO WAS WO RKED OUT BY HIM FOR BOTH THESE YEARS WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INCREAS E OR DECREASE IN THE STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE RAW-MATERIAL CONSU MPTION AT 33.75% WAS WORKED OUT BY HIM FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR BY AP PLYING THE RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION OF RS. 98,53,050/- TO THE SALES OF RS.3 ,03,25,021/- WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT THERE WAS A DECREASE IN THE STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 64,14,473/- IN THAT YEAR. THE ACTUAL PRODUC TION OF THAT YEAR THUS WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2.39 CRORES ONLY (SALES OF RS. 3.03 CRORES LESS DECREASE IN STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS OF RS. 0.64 CRORES) WHICH GIVES T HE RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION RATIO OF 43.75% AS AGAINST 33.75% TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. SIMILARLY, THERE WAS INCREASE IN STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OF RS.43,25,305/- AND IF THE SAME IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUN T, THE PRODUCTION WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3.94 CRORES GIVING THE RAW-MATERIAL CON SUMPTION RATIO OF 66.75% AS AGAINST 75% TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT BEEN AB LE TO DISPUTE THIS POSITION CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE RELEVANT RECORD. 7. THE OTHER MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WHILE ARRIVING AT CONCLUSION OF HIGHER RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION IN TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS THAT HE CONSIDERED THE LOSS OF GOODS DAMAGED DUE TO FLOODS AT ONLY RS. 53,56,213/- AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL LOSS OF RS. 1,13, 90,272/- SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE INSURANCE CLAIM. AS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US, THE RE WERE ACTUALLY TWO INSURANCE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LOSS OF GOODS L YING IN TWO DIFFERENT PREMISES. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED ONLY ONE CLAIM IGNORING TOTALLY THE OTHER CLAIM. THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A) AFTER VERIFYING THE EXACT FIGURE OF LOSS ACTUALLY SUFFERED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM THE RELEVANT INSURANCE CLAIMS AND THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE LEARNED DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN ITA NO.2350/M/2010 M/S. KEVAL KAUSHAL IMPEX P. LTD. 7 THIS REGARD BEFORE US IS THAT THE DETAILS OF OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM HAVING NOT BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OCCASION TO VERIFY THE SA ME. AS POINTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SUBMISSIONS DATED 2 ND DECEMBER, 2008, FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER (COPIES PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 25 TO 41 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK), A NOTE WAS GIVEN EXPLAINING THE REASON S FOR INCREASE IN THE MATERIAL COST BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS CLEARLY STATE D IN THE SAID NOTE, COPIES OF INSURANCE CLAIMS WERE ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH COPIES OF FIRS FILED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WH ICH WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THERE WERE TWO CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR LOSS OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF DAMAGE OF GOODS LYING IN TW O DIFFERENT PREMISES WHICH WERE COVERED UNDER TWO DIFFERENT INSURANCE POLICIES . IT, THEREFORE CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE FACT THAT TWO DIFFERENCE INSURANCE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OCCASION TO VERIFY THE SAME. WE, THEREFORE, FIN D NO MERIT IN THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE I N THIS REGARD AND OVER-RULE THE SAME. IN OUR OPINION, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING SUFFERED A LOSS OF RS. 1,13,90,272/- AS A RESULT OF DAMAGE TO THE GOODS DU E TO FLOODS WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CLAIMS MADE TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY ON THE SPOT PANCHNAMA MADE, FIR FILED WITH THE POLI CE DEPARTMENT, ETC., AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN TAKING INTO A CCOUNT THE SAID LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT TH E ACTUAL RAW- MATERIAL CONSUMPTION RATIO FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS 41.97% AND IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 80,97,708/- MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED EXCESS RAW-MATERIAL CONSUMPTION AFTER HAVIN G FOUND THAT THE ACTUAL RAW- MATERIAL CONSUMPTION AT 41.97% IN THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION WAS LOWER THAN 43.75% SHOWN IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. WE , THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY ITA NO.2350/M/2010 M/S. KEVAL KAUSHAL IMPEX P. LTD. 8 IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, WE DISMISS THIS APPE AL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011. SD. SD. (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED THE 13 TH APRIL, 2011. KN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT-9, MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT(A)-20, MUMBAI 5. THE DR A BENCH, MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI