ITO, Mandi Gobindgarh V. M/s Mohit Steels, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 709/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68401 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: H R SALDI
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 689/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PROP. M/S A.K.STEELS, WARD 1, MUGAL MAJRA ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN NO. ABLPG-9497P & ITA NO. 708/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, WARD 1, PROP. M/S A.K.STEELS, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MUGAL MAJRA ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH. & ITA NO.690/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 M/S MOHIT STEELS, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASRALI ROAD, WARD 1, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN NO. AAFFM-7513D & ITA NO.709/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS M/S MOHIT STEEL, WARD 1, NASRALI ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. & ITA NO.692/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 M/S RAM STEEL INDUSTRIES, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICE R, G.T. ROAD, WARD 1, KHANNA SIDE, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN NO. AACFR-0160J 2 & ITA NO. 707/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS M/S RAM STEEL INDUSTRIE S, WARD 1, G.T.ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH. KHANNA SIDE, MANDI GOBINDGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.R.SALDI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 13.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.08.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM OUT OF THESE SIX APPEALS, THREE CROSS APPEALS ARE F ILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AND REVENUE AGAINST SEPARATE OR DERS OF CIT(APPEALS) DATED 27.04.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) O F THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 ( 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT). 2. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE IN INDIVIDUAL APPEALS HAVE RAISED COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE APPEALS. WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS BY REFERRING TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.689/CHD/2012 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO. 7 08/CHD/2012 FILED BY THE REVENUE. AS IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED BY T HIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 689/CHD/2012 READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) PATIALA HAS WRONGLY AND 3 ARBITRARILY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,93,4417 - WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. HENCE IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DISTURBED THE DECLA RED RESULTS ALTHOUGH NO DEFECT WAS FOUND IN THE BOOKS. THE APPELLANT HAVE DECLARED THE G.P. AT 2.68 % BUT THE LD. CIT(A) APPLIED 4.5 % WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, AS SUCH THE DECLARED G.P. BE DIRECTED TO BE APPLIED. 4. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN I TA NO. 708/CHD/2012 READ AS UNDER : IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT SUSTAINING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.26,95,469/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACC OUNT OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF ITS CLAIM AND, THEREFORE DID NOT DISCHARGE THE O NUS CAST ON IT. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN T AKING AN ADVERSE VIEW AS PER SECTION 114 OF THE INDIAN EVIDE NCE ACT. 5. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET POINT ED OUT THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SINGH STEEL & ALLIED INDUSTRIES RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2005-06 AND IN THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVE NUE IN ITA NOS. 688 & 710/CHD/2012, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 2 4.05.2013 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY APPLYING GP RATE TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR DETERMINING THE INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIAN CE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,83,390/-. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX HELD 4 THE ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE IN TERESTS OF REVENUE BY EXERCISING HIS POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX DIRECTED T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFRESH AFTER M AKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 956/CHD/2009 IN A SSESSEE'S CASE ALONGWITH LEAD ORDER IN ITA NO. 954/CHD/2009 VIDE O RDER DATED 28.2.2011 CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME- TAX THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO MAKE ENQUIRIES AND THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIB UNAL. 7. PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT IT HAD PURCHASED THE RAW MATERIAL IN THE OPEN MARKET WHICH WAS NOT OF GOOD QUALITY AND HENCE , REQUIRED EXTRA HEAT AS COMPARED TO GOOD QUALITY RAW MATERIAL WHICH REQUIRED LESS HEAT IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. SECOND CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT WHEN THINNER SECTIONS WERE TO BE PRODUCED, IT REQUIRED LESSER FUEL AND ELECTRICITY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MANUFACTURED HIGH QUALITY FINAL PRODUCTS FROM LOW Q UALITY RAW MATERIAL AND THAT WAS THE REASON FOR HIGHER CONSUMP TION OF ELECTRICITY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT IT HAD MANUFACTURED PRESS PATTI WHICH CONSUMED MORE THAN THREE TO FOUR TIMES OF ELECTRICITY THAN NORMALLY FINISHED GOODS, BEING THI NNER SECTION. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FILE SEPARATE DETAILS OF THICKNESS AND LENGTHWISE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE 5 OF HAVING CONSUMED HIGHER ELECTRICITY UNITS. THE A SSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE VALUE OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTI ON RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS. 26,95,469/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.9,29,300/- ON ACCO UNT OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION AND THE BALANCE ADDITION OF R S. 17,66,169/- WAS MADE BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 8. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 4 AT PA GES 3 TO 14 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE CIT(APPEALS) VIDE PARA 4. 2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE ADDITION H AD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, THE CIT(APPEALS ) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION AND MONITORING BY OTHER GOV ERNMENT AGENCIES LIKE EXCISE SALES TAX, PF, LABOUR DEPARTME NT ETC. AND NO DEFECTS WERE FOUND BY ANY OF THE DEPARTMENT. FURTH ER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THERE WAS NO BASI S OF MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION BY REFERRING TO READING OF E LECTRICITY FOR ONE HOUR AND THAT TOO AFTER TWO YEARS FROM THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(APPEALS) VIDE PARA 4.3(F) COMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E AS UNDER: 4.3(F ) IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, I AM INCLINED TO APPLY THE GP RATE OF 4.5 % ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING. THE PERCENTAGE IS TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF PRODUCTION RESULTS OF COMPARABLE BUSINESSES, TURNOVER AND THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT. AS SUBMITTED BY THE A.O A ND THE APPELLANT, THE TURNOVER IS RS. 5,4615,246/- AND THE GP IS RS 14, 64,245/- @2.68%.ACCORDINGLY, ON TURNOVER OF RS 5,46,15,246 /- THE GP WILL BE RS 24,57,686/- THE GP DISCLOSED IS RS 14,64,245/-. THE REFORE THE ADDITION WILL BE RS 9,93,441/-. 6 9. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS A LSO REJECTED AS NO CASE OF SALES OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS FO UND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS. 993 ,441/-. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 10. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE OF ESTIMATION OF I NCOME IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER STEEL ROLLING MILL AROSE BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL IN M/S SINGH STEEL & ALLIED INDUSTRIES, MANDI GOBINDGARH VS ITO (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 24.05.2013 VIDE PARAS 9 T O 12 HELD AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IRON AND STEEL ROLLING MILL. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT IS A SM ALL ROLLING MILL CALLED 6 MILL AND CAN PRODUCE THINNER SECTIONS ONL Y. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ALONGWITH AUDIT ED ACCOUNTS AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT IS MAINTAI NING COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH SALE AND PURCHASE VOUCHE RS, STOCK REGISTER, DAILY PRODUCTION REGISTER, WAGES REGISTER AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. THE SAID DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION LIKE SALES TAX , LABOUR DEPARTMENT, ELECTRICITY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION/DEPARTMENTS. THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL BEF ORE US ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. DURING THE COURSE OF ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS I.E. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08, THE AO HAD VISITED THE FACTORY PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AN D HAD NOTED THE ELECTRICITY BUILDING I.E. UNIT CONSUMED WITHIN A TI ME OF ABOUT ONE HOUR. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT WAS RUN NING INTO LOSSES AND HAD LEASED OUT ITS FACTORY TO M/S S.B.STEEL IND USTRIES FROM 01.06.2005 AT ANNUAL LEASE RENTAL OF RS.1.5 LACS. THE INSPECTION CARRIED OUT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS ON A THI RD PERSON AND WAS ALSO MADE AFTER ABOUT 2 YEARS FROM THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR. 10. THE AO HAD WORKED OUT THE VALUE OF SUPPRESSED P RODUCTION ON THE BASIS OF THE TOTAL ELECTRIC UNITS CONSUMED D URING THE YEAR ON THE BASIS OF PER HOUR UNIT CONSUMPTION AND AS PER T HE AO, THERE WAS SUPPRESSION IN PRODUCTION TO THE TUNE OF RS.25, 59,837/-. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT BESIDES THE EL ECTRICITY CONSUMPTION, THERE WERE OTHER FACTORS LIKE BURNING AND MELTING LOSS, FLUCTUATIONS, NATURE OF MACHINERY, NATURE OF RAW MATERIAL ETC. TO BE CONSIDERED IN ORDER TO WORK OUT PRODUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMS THAT DURING THE CAPTION ED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE FACTORY HAD RUN ONLY FOR 44 DAYS ON DIFFE RENT INTERVALS AND ON THE BALANCE DAYS, THE ELECTRICITY WAS USED F OR CONSUMPTION IN OTHER MACHINERY I.E. SEARING MACHINES AND OTHER MACHINES. ANOTHER ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SINCE IT WAS A SMALL UNIT, ITS FOREMAN AND OTHER WORKERS WERE NOT VERY S KILLED AND LOW QUALITY RAW MATERIAL WAS BEING USED WHICH IN-TURN C ONSUMES MORE POWER. 7 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE AO ON MAINLY RELYING UPON THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY AS THE BASIS TO WORK OUT THE VALUE OF THE SUPPRESS PRODUCTION WOULD NOT GIVE THE CORRECT RESULTS OF THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE A SSESSEE. 12. THE CIT VIDE PARA 4.3 HAS ELABORATELY CONSIDERE D VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AND THE RE LEVANT FACTORS. WE ARE NOT REPRODUCING THE SAID PARA FOR THE SAKE O F BREVITY. HOWEVER, A REFERENCE IS BEING PLACED ON THE OBSERVA TIONS OF CIT(A) IN PARA 4.3. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING AGREED TO SUPPRESS PRODUCTION OF RS.8,46,834/- IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEED INGS, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) IN APPLYI NG GP RATE OF 5% ON THE TOTAL TURN-OVER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE P URPOSE OF DETERMINING THE INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING. UPHOLDI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.9,89,153/- WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY BOTH ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE . 11. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT AP PEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF M/S SINGH STEEL & ALLIED INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF C IT(APPEALS) IN APPLYING GP RATE ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSE SSEE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD ADMITTED TO ADDITION OF RS.929,300 /- FOR SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO APPLY GP RATE OF 4.5% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEAR HAD APPLIED A GP RATE OF 5% ON THE TOTAL TURNO VER OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO RECOMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING A GP RATE OF 5% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMI NING THE INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED B Y BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE, THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. IN ITA NOS. 690/CHD/2012 AND 709/CHD/2012 I.E. CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE M/S MOHIT STEELS, MANDI GOBIN DGARH AND BY THE 8 REVENUE AGAINST M/S MOHIT STEELS, THE ISSUE IS IDEN TICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN ITA NO. 689/CHD/2012 AND ITA NO. 708/CHD/ 2012. IN VIEW OF OUR DISCUSSION IN THE PARAS HEREIN ABOVE AND FOL LOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IN COME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE COMPUTED BY APPLYING GP RATE TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE INCOME FROM MANU FACTURING. THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, HAD AGREED TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION OF RS. 812,240/-. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING A GP RATE OF 6.4 % TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 1.30 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE U S HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF B OTH TRADING AND MANUFACTURE DURING THE YEAR. IN VIEW THEREOF, AS T HE FACTS ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE EARLIER CASES, WHER E THE PERSONS WERE ENGAGED ONLY IN MANUFACTURING, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN APPLYING GP RATE OF 6.4% TO THE TOT AL TURNOVER IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING. IN VIE W THEREOF, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY THE REVENUE ARE, THUS DISMISSED. 13. IN ITA NO. 692/CHD/2012 AND ITA NO. 707/CHD/201 2 I.E. APPEALS FILED IN THE CASE OF M/S RAM STEEL INDUSTRIES, THE ISSUE ARISING IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE EARLIER APPEA LS AND THE SAME REASONING IS TO BE APPLIED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE TH E INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION ONLY. IN THE ORIGINAL ROUND OF ASSESSMENT, THE SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE WAS AGREED UPON AT RS. 12,95,975/-. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD APPLIED G P RATE TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS. 13,25,728/- A S AGAINST THE ORIGINAL 9 ADDITION OF RS. 12,95,975/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN APPLYING GP RATE TO THE TOTAL TURNO VER IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEE A ND THE REVENUE ARE, THUS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS. 689/CHD/2012 AND ITA NO. 708/CHD/2012 ARE PARTLY AL LOWED AND APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 690 AND 692/CHD/ 2012 AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 709 AND 707/CHD/2012 ARE DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF AUG., 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :20 TH AUG.,2013 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH