M/s. Rama Rice Co., KOTKAPURA V. Income Tax Officer, Faridkot

ITA 629/ASR/1993

• Counselvise Citation: 62920914 RSA 1993
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 1991-1992
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R L CHHANALIA
• Assessee Lawyers: K R JAIN
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.629(ASR)/1993 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1991-92 PAN : M/S. RAMA RICE CO., VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAITO ROAD, KOTKAPURA. FARIDKOT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. K.R. JAIN, ADV. RESPONDENT BY:SH. R.L. CHHANALIA, DR DATE OF HEARING:08/11/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:19/11/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 16.02.1993 RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1991-92 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION OF RS.56,595/- BY ESTIMATING THE YIELD OF RICE AT 65.66% IGNORING THE YIELD OF 64.05% BEING OBTAINED BY THE OTHER DEALER OF THE AREA AND ACCEPTED BY D.F. & S.C . DEPARTMENT. FURTHER THE JUDGMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HA RYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. JHANDU MAL TARA CHAN D RICE ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 2 MILLS HAS BEEN IGNORED. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PRESSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER ON THE VERY FIRST INSTA NCE WHEN THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS OUT OF TOWN. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,85,430/- IN SUPERIOR PHAK A/C. SIN CE PHAK IS NON-STANDARD PRODUCT, THE YIELD OF WHICH DEPENDS OF PROCESS BEING ADOPTED BY RICE MILL. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAIL ED TO DIFFERENTIATE THE QUALITY OF SUPERIOR PHAK OF SELA PLANT WITH THAT OF RAW PLOT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AND ITO HAS COMMITTED THE F ACT THAT PADDY IS BEING LIFTED EVEN ON SUNDAY FROM THE GOVT. GODOWN AND THE SHELLER RUNS DAY AND NIGHT I.E. WITHOUT ANY HOLIDAY. 4. THAT THE PETITIONER PRAYS FOR ALLOWING TO TAKE U P ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 1 0.03.1992 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,77,300/-. THE AO SELECTED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SCRUTINY AND ISSUED A STATUTORY NOTICE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND CONTENDED T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A SHELLER AT KOTKAPURA AND DERIVES INCOME F ROM ITS OWN BUSINESS OF PURCHASE OF PADDY AND SALE OF ITS BYE-PRODUCTS BESI DES OBTAINING MILLING CHARGES FROM THE GOVT,. DEPARTMENTS. THE ACCOUNT BO OKS MAINTAINED ARE CASH BOOK, LEDGER AND AECL REGISTERS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE DFSC. HE HAS ALSO FILED SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O . AFTER PERUSING THE SAME, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MILLED 13259 QTLS. OF PADDY AND THE YIELD OF RICE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 8568 QTLS GI VING YIELD PERCENTAGE OF ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 3 66.35%. THE ASSESSEE MILLED PADDY (INCLUDING OWN AN D THAT OF FCI) AT 92436 QTLS. AND YIELD OF PHAK WAS SHOWN AT 1191 QTL S. WHICH GIVES YIELD PERCENTAGE OF 1.28%. AS THE YIELD OF RICE AND THAT OF PHAK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE APPARENTLY LOW, IT WAS CONSIDERED THA T IT WAS VERY NECESSARY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE CORRECT AND COMPLETE AND WHETHER INCOME CAN BE PROPERLY DEDUCED FROM THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTS EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS OF TH E VIEW THAT THE ACCOUNT BOOKS ARE IMAGINARY AND NOT REAL AND THE FIGURES WE RE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT IN ACTUAL PR ACTICE, 30% TO 40% MORE PRODUCTION CAN BE ACHIEVED THAN THE CAPACITY OF THE MILLING. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN MILLING OF PADDY ON SOME DAYS WHICH HAPPE N TO BE EXCESS. IN THE SALARY REGISTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE WORKER S TO BE ON HOLIDAY BUT IN THE STOCK REGISTER, THE ASSESSEE SHOWN THE MILLING OF PADDY. THUS, BOTH THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CONTRADICTORY TO EACH O THER. THE AO FELT DISSATISFIED WITH THIS AVERMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSE E AND HELD THAT IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD HOW THE ASSESSEE COULD SHOW MILLING OF P ADDY ON SUNDAYS. THE AO FURTHER HELD THAT THE PADDY IS WEIGHED WHEN IT I S PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE PADDY IS NOT WEIGHED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE WEIGHT OF PADDY AS IT PURCHASED FROM THE MARKET AND NO LOANS HAS BEEN SHOWN ON ACCOUNT OF DRIAGE AND WASTAGE. THE AO WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF YIELD OF RICE ON CERTAIN DATES WHICH IS NOT PRACTICABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT P ADDY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DIFFERS AND THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF YIELD O F RICE CANNOT BE OBTAINED. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN SOME INSTANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND POINTED OUT VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINT AINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RELIABLE AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN WRI TTEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS OWN CONVENIENCE AND NOT HAS GIVEN TRUE PICTURE OF ITS ACCOUNTS AND HE APPLIED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT, BY CITING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, IN THE CAS E OF M/S. PUNJAB TRADING CO. LTD. 53 ITR 335 AND COMPUTED THE INCREA SE YIELD IN RICE AND RICE PHAK ACCOUNTS AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.56,5 95/- IN RICE ACCOUNT AND RS.1,85,430/- IN YIELD OF PHAK ACCOUNT AND FRAMED T OTAL INCOME AT RS.4,30,625/- WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT IN DI SPUTE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BATHINDA, WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 16.02.1993 D ISMISSED THE SAME. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS PARTLY ALLOWED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.07.2001 BY HOLDING THAT ADDITION OF RS.56,595/- IN RICE ACC OUNT WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 5 CASE OF SHANKER RICE CO. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 249 ITR 44 (AT). IT WAS ALSO ORDERED TO ADOPT THE YIELD OF RICE PHAK AT 2.7 0% AGAINST 1.28% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND 3.20% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.07.2001, THE ASS ESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT I.E. IN ITA NO.36 OF 2002 AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 3 RD JANUARY, 2012 DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY REMANDING THE M ATTER BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL TO REDECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 3 RD JANUARY, 2012 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT, THIS APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THIS BENCH ON 08.11.2012. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES ALONG WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ONE PAPER BOOK CONTAINI NG PAGES 1 TO 96 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS OF THE CA U/S 44AB, SUBMISSIONS REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF PROVISO U/S 145 AND ESTI MATE OF YIELD OF KHUDI PHAK, COMPARATIVE YIELD CHART OF RICE, COMPARATIVE YIELD CHART OF KHUDDI PHAK, YIELD OF KHUDDI PHAK SHOWN BY OTHER RICE MILL S, EXTRACT FROM JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S. KAILASH COTTON FACTORY , MANSA, EXTRACT FROM ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 6 THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHANKER RICE COMPA NY, COPY OF JUDGMENT OF ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. AGGARWAL RICE CO. KOTKAPURA, COPY OF JUDGMENT OF ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHRI DURGA RICE & GENL. MILLS, COPY OF JUDGMENT OF M/S. R.K. V ISHAL RICE GEN. MILLS, EXTRACT FROM THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/ S. GUPTA RICE MILLS & ALLIED INDS; EXTRACT FROM THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. BHARAT RICE MILLS PATIALA, EXTRACT FROM THE DECISION OF IT AT IN THE CASE OF MODERN CHAWAL NIGAM, EXTRACT FROM THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. MALWA RICE & GEN. MILLS AND LIST OF CASES REFERRED TO. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHETHER ANY COMPARABLE CASE ESTABLISHING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR NOT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINT ED OUT ANY COMPARABLE CASE WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED A PAPER BOOKING CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 96 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED V ARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS STATED ABOVE ALONGWITH COMPARATIVE YIEL D CHART OF RICE AT PAGE 57 AND COMPARATIVE YIELD CHART OF KHUDI PHAK AT PAG E 58 AND YIELD OF KHUDI PHAK SHOWN BY OTHER RICE MILLS AT PAGE 59. ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 7 5. THE LD. DR STATED THAT AT THIS STAGE COMPARABLE CASES CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXAMINED. IT CAN ONLY BE EXAMINED AT THE LEVEL OF THE A.O. HE REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED VARIOUS CASE LAW SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE ALONGWITH COMPARATIVE YIELD CHART OF RICE AND KHUDI PHAK AS STATED ABOVE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(1) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAU SE THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RELIABLE AND A.O HAS POINTE D OUT VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS ALSO POINTED OUT VARIOUS INSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN THE MILLING OF PADDY ON SUNDAY BUT COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE PRES ENCE OF WORKERS WHO PERFORMED THE JOB. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE DISCUS SIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE APPELLATE ORDER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(1) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 8 7. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO AD DITION OF RS.56,595/- BY ESTIMATING THE YIELD OF RICE AT 65.66%. THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE IS ON ACCOUNT OF YIELD OF RICE AT 65.66% IGNORING THE YIELD OF 64.5% BEING OBTAINED BY THE OTHER DEALERS OF THE AREA AND ACCEPTED BY THE D.F. & S.C. DEPARTMENT. 8. AFTER PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHANKER RICE CO. VS. ITO REPORTED IN 72 ITD 139 (SB ), AS THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CASE OF M/S. SHAN KER RICE & CO. (SUPRA). THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHANKER RICE & CO. (SU PRA), THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION IN DISP UTE IS DELETED. 9. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.2 REG ARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,85,430/- IN SUPERIOR PHAK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSE E CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE PHAK IS NON-STANDARD PRODUCT, AND ITS YIELD DEPENDS UPON THE PROCESS ADOPTED BY THE RICE MILLERS AND THE REVENUE AUTHORI TY HAS NOT POINTED OUT ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 9 ANY DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY OF SUPERIOR PHAK WITH THA T OF RAW PLOT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 10. THE LD. DR, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE INV OLVED IN GROUND NO.2, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN YIEL D OF SUPERIOR PHAK AT 1191 QTLS. OUT OF TOTAL PADDY MILLED 92436 QTLS. WH ICH GAVE THE PERCENTAGE OF 1.28%. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN YIELD OF RICE BRAN @ 3.30% AND THE AO BY FOLLOWING ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SIMILAR O THER CASES ADOPTED A YIELD @ 3.20% FOR SUPERIOR PHAK, THEREBY CALCULATED THE YIELD OF PHAK AT 2987 QTLS AGAINST THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 119 1 QTLS. AND THEREBY CALCULATED THE DIFFERENCE IN YIELD TO THE TUNE OF 1 766 QTLS. BY APPLYING THE SALE RATE OF RS.105/- PER QTL. WORKED OUT THE ADDI TION AT RS.1,85,430/-, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. NO DOUBT, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE NOT PRODUCED ANY COMPARABLE CASE BEFOR E US, BUT AS PER EARLIER ORDER PASSED BY THIS BENCH ON 20.07.2001, THE BENCH HAS MENTIONED THE CASE OF M/S. VIJAY RICE MILLS, KOTKAPURA VS. ITO IN ITA NO.627(ASR)/1993 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92, WHERE THE TRIBUNAL VID E ORDER DATED 12.07.2001 CONSIDERED THE YIELD OF RICE PHAK AT 2.6 7% AS REASONABLE AGAINST THE ESTIMATED YIELD ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT 3. 17%. IN THE CASE OF THE ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 10 ASSESSEE, THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS 1.28% FOR THE RICE PHAK WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIJAY RICE MILLS, KOTKAPURA, TH E YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 1.65%. THE YIELD OF RICE BRAN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS 3.30% WHILE IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIJAY RICE MILLS, K OTKAPURA, IT WAS 3.33%. IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COMPARATIVE CHARTS OF RICE, KHUDI PHAK AND YIELD OF KHUDI PHA K SHOWN BY OTHER RICE MILLS AT PAGES 57, 58 & 59. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD . DR THAT THESE COMPARABLE CASES CANNOT BE COMPARED AT THIS STAGE, IT CAN ONLY BE COMPARED AND EXAMINED BY THE A.O. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ASSESS MENT YEAR IN DISPUTE I.E. 1991-92 AND THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD 01.04.1990 TO 31.03.1991 AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 16.02.1993, ITAT ORDER DATED 20.07.2001 PASSED BY THIS BENCH AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER DAT ED 16.02.1993, WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE HONBLE PUNJA B & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.36 OF 2002 DECIDED ON 03.01.2012 DI SPOSED OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY REMANDING THE MATTER TO THIS TRI BUNAL TO RE-DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AS PER RECORD A VAILABLE WITH US, OFFICE OF THE ITAT HAS RECONSTRUCTED THE FILE AND OBTAINED ALL NECESSARY PAPERS FROM THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AND FIXED THE HEARING OF THE CASE BEFORE THE BENCH MEANING THEREBY THAT THE MATTER IS VERY OLD AND ASSESSEE HAS ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AND UPTO THE STAGE OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 11 AND NOW THE MATTER AGAIN CAME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL FOR NECESSARY JUSTICE. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCE COMPARAB LE CASES WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THREE COM PARABLE CASES OF THE ASSESSEE AND TWO COMPARABLE CASES MENTIONED BY THE ITAT IN THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2001. 12. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND THE CO MPARABLE CASES WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BEFORE US AND THE SAME WERE CONFRONTED TO THE LD. DR ALSO FOR HIS OPINION. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE I SSUE IN DISPUTE SHOULD NOT BE SENT BACK TO THE AO FOR RE-EXAMINATION, BEING T HE MATTER IS VERY MUCH OLD, AS STATED ABOVE. THEREFORE, WE PREFER TO DECID E THE SAME HERE WHEN WE HAVE APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(1) OF TH E ACT, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE, THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED THE COMPARATIVE CHART OF KHUDDI PHAK YIELD @ 1.47% AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 @ 1.42%, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEP ARTMENT AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 @ 1.45%, WHICH WAS ALSO ACC EPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED COMPARATIVE YIELD CHART OF RICE YIELD @ 64.53% FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92 WHICH IS UNDER APPEAL AND 64.85% FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93, WHICH W AS ACCEPTED BY THE ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 12 DEPARTMENT AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 @ 64 .86%, WHICH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO F ILED THE COMPARATIVE CHART OF VARIOUS OTHER RICE MILLS AND YIELD OF KHUD I PHAK SHOWN BY ABOUT 10 RICE MILLS, WHICH IS AT PAGE 59 (ANNEXURE A-8) OF T HE ASSESSEE BOOK, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: SL.NO. NAME & PLACE YIELD 1. M/S. SETHI RICE MILLS, KOTKAPURA 1.52% 2. M/S. AGGARWAL RICE COMPANY, KOTKAPURA 1.5% 3. M/S. VIJAY RICE MILL, -DO- 1.6% APP. 4. M/S. RAMA RICE COMPANY -DO- 1.3% 5. M/S. SINGLA RICE MILLS, RAMPURA 1% 6. M/S. DURGA RICE & GEN. MILLS, AHMEDGARH 0.61% 7. M/S. MITTAL RICE MILLS, BAGHA PURANA 1% 8. M/S. MAHALAXMI RICE MILLS,MANSA 1.61% 9. M/S. BHAGWATI RICE & GEN. MILLS, MANSA 1.68% 10. M/S. SHANKER RICE MILLS, KOTKAPURA. 1.67% 12.1. THIS BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 20.07.2001 DISCUS SED THE COMPARABLE CASES IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIJAY RICE MILLS, KOTKAPU RA VS. ITO KAPURA, IN ITA NO.627(ASR)/1993 FOR THE A.Y. 1991-92, ORDER DA TED 12.07.2001, WHEREBY THE YIELD OF RICE PHAK AT 2.67% WAS CONSIDE RED AS REASONABLE AGAINST ESTIMATED YIELD ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) A T 3.17%. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE YIELD @ 1.28% FOR RICE PHAK WHEREAS IN TH E CASE M/S. VIJAY RICE MILLS, KOTKAPURA (SUPRA), THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE WAS AT 1.65% . ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 13 THE YIELD OF RICE BRAN IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS 3.30% WHILE IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIJAY RICE MILLS, KOTKAPURA (SUPRA), IT WAS 3.33%. THIS BENCH FINALLY ADOPTED THE YIELD OF RICE PHAK AT 2.70% AS AGAINST THE ESTIMATED YIELD ADOPTED BY THE REVENUE AT 3.20%. 12.2. NOW THE PRESENT APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING AF TER ABOUT 12 YEARS BEFORE THIS BENCH. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IF WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR ADOPTING REASONABLE ESTIMATION ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(1) IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE. WE HAVE DISCUSSED ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE MILLING OF YI ELD ON CERTAIN DATES WHICH IS MORE THAN THE CAPACITY OF THE SHELLER. THE FIGU RES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS ARE IMAGINARY AND NOT REAL, WH EN THE ASSESSE WAS CONFRONTED ON THIS POINT BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE PL EADED THAT THIS IS A ROUTINE PRACTICE AND PRODUCTION CAN BE ACHIEVED MO RE THAN THE CAPACITY OF THE MILLING. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LOGIC AL AND WAS WITHOUT ANY PROOF OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THERE ARE VARIOUS IN STANCES GIVEN BY THE AO WHICH ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND ARE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AND FINALLY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(1 ) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN APPLIED BY THE AO IN THIS CASE AND WE HAVE UPHELD T HE SAME. ITA NO.629(ASR)/1993 14 12.3. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES D ISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT WOULD FAIR AND RE ASONABLE TO ADOPT THE YIELD OF RICE PHAK AT 1.8% AS AGAINST THE ESTIMATED YIELD ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AT 3.20%. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE A. O. TO ADOPT RICE PHAK YIELD AT 1.8% AND MADE THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED, AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19TH NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19TH NOVEMBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. RAMA RICE CO., KOTKAPURA. 2. THE ITO, FARIDKOT 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.