ITO, Malerkotla V. Sh. Abhinanadan Goyal, Ahmedgarh.

ITA 896/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73585 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.896 /CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH.ABHINANDAN GOYAL IV(3), PROP.M/S R.R.AGRO INDS. MALERKOTLA. C/O SHREE GURU CHARAN PARKASH OIL MILLS, DHULKOT ROAD, AHMEDGARH. PAN: ADVPG2318R AND C.O.NO.33/CHD/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.896/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SH.ABHINANDAN GOYAL VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PROP.M/S R.R.AGRO INDS. IV(3), C/O SHREE GURU CHARAN MALERKOTLA. PARKASH OIL MILLS, DHULKOT ROAD, AHMEDGARH. PAN: ADVPG2318R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.03.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA D ATED 22.06.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED UNDER 2 SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE APP EALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. (A) THE LD. CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW, HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,80,544/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS SHORTAGE. (B) THE LD. CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN DELETING T HE ABOVE ADDITION WITHOUT RECORDING AS TO WHETHER THE QUALITY OF RICE HUSHED BY PARTIES, WHOSE CASES HAVE BEEN COMPARED, WERE COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSES AND WHETHER THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE THAT QUALITY HUSHED BY ASSES SEE IN EARLIER YEAR WAS BETTER THAN THAT IN THIS YEAR. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-LL, LUDHIANA BE SE T ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY DISPOSED. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN CROSS OBJECTIONS HAS RAISED FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.707558/- AS PER PARA 9 OF THE ORDER IN RESPECT O F SO-CALLED LESS SALE OF RICE HUSK SHOWN AT RS.1563067/- DURING THE YEAR BY TAKING THE SALE VALUE AT RS.2270625/-. 2. THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIO NS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPO SED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED OR FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR WHICH THE N OTICE WAS ISSUED BY REGISTERED POST. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD AND THE APPEAL IS BEING DECIDE D AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE. 6. THE ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.9,80,544/-. 3 7. THE ASSESSEE VIDE CROSS OBJECTIONS IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.7,07,558 /- BY ADOPTING THE SALE PRICE OF RICE HUSK. 8. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS A RICE SHELLER AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD SHOWN GROSS TURN OVER OF RS.1.28 CRORES ON WHICH GROSS PROFIT OF RS.29,07,429/- WAS DECLARED. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHE D QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ALONGWITH AUDIT REPORT FILED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE YIELD OF RICE AT 93.4 0%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN EXCESSIVE SHORTAGE AT 6.50% AS AGAINST SHORTAGE OF 3.24% PREVAILING IN TH E INDUSTRY. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADJUS TED THE SHORTAGE IN RICE BRAN UNDER WHICH THE YIELD OF RICE BRAN WAS TAKEN A T 3.50% AS COMPARED TO 5.80% IN THE LAST YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE YIELD OF RICE BRAN WAS LESS INSTEAD OF THE FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD INSTALLED NEW MACHINERY WORTH RS.60,27,229/-. THUS THE YIELD OF RICE BRAN WAS PROPOSED TAKEN AT 5% BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO CONFRONTED WITH THE EXCESSIVE SHORTAGE SHOWN. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ANOTHER CONCERN M/S BANSAL RICE MILLS HAD SHOWN SAM E YIELD BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE SUPPRES SED HIS INCOME BY CLAIMING EXCESSIVE SHORTAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE YIELD OF RICE BRAN @ 5.80% AS IN THE LAST YEAR AND THE RATE OF RICE BRAN WAS RS.650/- AS PER VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AND ADDITION OF RS.9, 80,544/- WAS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. FURTHER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION THE HUSK OF 13117.69 QTLS. WAS GENERATED. THE ASSESSEE SOLD HU SK AND AVERAGE SALE RATE SALE OF HUSK DURING THE PERIOD WAS @ RS.120.46 PER QTL. AND CLOSING STOCK WAS VALUED @ RS.150/- PER QTL. THE ASSESSEE WAS CO NFRONTED WITH THE SALE 4 RATE SHOWN BY OTHER CONCERN WHO SOLD HUSK @ RS.165/ - TO RS.225/- PER QTL. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO CONFRONTED AS TO WHY THE SALE RATE AND CLOSING STOCK SHOULD NOT BE VALUED AT HIGHER RATES AS THE ASSESSE E HAD SUPPRESSED THE SALES AND UNDERVALUED ITS STOCK. THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER A PPLIED THE NET VALUE OF RS.175/- PER QTL. TO BOTH THE SALE RATE AND THE CLO SING STOCK VALUE RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS.6,34,157/-. 9. THE CIT (APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF YIELD OF RICE BRAN ON THE GR OUND THAT THE YIELD WAS LESS AS COMPARED TO THE LAST YEAR. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. TH E PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE YIELD OF RICE BRAN DEPENDS UPON THE NUMBER OF FACTORS I.E. TYPE OF PADDY BEING MILLED, DRIAGE FACTOR, TYPE OF MACHINER Y INSTALLED, SKILLED OR UNSKILLED LABOUR ETC., WAS NOT ACCEPTED. FURTHER T HE ASSESSEE FILED COMPARATIVE CASES IN WHICH YIELD OF RICE BRAN WAS L ESS THAN WAS SHOWN AS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS APPLIED AND ADDITI ON MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DELETED. IN RESPECT OF SECOND ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE RATE AND CLOSING STOCK VALUE RATE OF RICE HUSK, THE CIT (APPEALS) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED THE MARKET RATE O F RICE HUSK SOLD DURING THE PERIOD AND THERE WERE SPECIFIC INSTANCES WHERE THE MARKET RATE OF RICE HUSK SHOWN TO BE BETWEEN RS.250 TO RS.300 PER QTL, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY DECLARED AVERAGE RATE OF RS.120.4 6 PER QTL. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RAT IO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN SHRI MANPREET SINGH DHILLON VS. ITO, WA RD NABHA IN ITA NO.69/CHD/2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD. 5 10. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE RELIEF ALL OWED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIO N AGAINST THE ADDITION UPHELD BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 11. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS IN WHICH IT HAS MADE SIMILAR SUBMISSIONS AS CONSIDERED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE IN YIELD OF RICE BRAN. THE MAIN PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT WHERE THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW YIELD OF RICE BRAN. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PRICE OF RICE HUSK, THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE AVERAGE SALE RATE HAD BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.120.46 PER QTL. BUT THE CLOSING STOC K HAD BEEN VALUED AT RS.150/- PER QTL., AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD APPLIED RATE OF RS.175/- PER QTL. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSES SEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COVERED BY TH E DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FOLLOWING CASES: A) SHRI MANPREET SINGH DHILLON VS. ITO (ITA NO.69/ CHD/2009) B) SH.SATINDER KUMAR PROP.M/S GURU KIRPA RICE MILL S, DHURI VS. ITO (ITA NO.436/CHD/2012) 12. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF SHORTAGE IN YIELD O F RICE BRAN AND IN RESPECT OF VALUE OF RICE HUSK. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 13. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD AND THE WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION MOVED BY THE ASS ESSEE. IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF YIELD OF RICE BRAN, ADMITTEDLY THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID BOOKS OF AC COUNT ARE AUDITED AND 6 WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SA ID BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HO WEVER, THE YIELD OF RICE BRAN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THE SAME TO BE LOWER THAN IN THE MA RKET. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RICE SHELLING AND THE YI ELD OF RICE BRAN DEPENDS UPON NUMBER OF FACTORS E.G. TYPE OF PADDY BEING MIL LED, DRIAGE FACTOR, TYPE OF MACHINERY INSTALLED, SKILLED OR UNSKILLED LABOUR ETC. IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE YIELD SHOWN FROM YEAR TO YEAR VA RIES AND IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DECLARE THE SAME YIEL D AS DECLARED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLET ING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED THE RATE OF Y IELD AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AS THE BASIS FOR MAK ING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CURRENT YEAR. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN PERISHABLE ITEMS AND AS POINTED OUT BY US, THE Y IELD OF RICE IS DEPENDANT ON VARIOUS FACTORS AND IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSE E CANNOT DECLARE SAME YIELD FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND HENCE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ALLEGED LOW YIE LD FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FINDI NGS OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE . 14. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE VALUE OF RICE HUSK. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE A RISE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN SHRI MANPREET SINGH DHILLON VS. ITO (SUPRA) AND SH.SATINDER KUMAR PROP.M/S GURU KIRPA RICE MILLS, DHURI VS. ITO (SUPR A) AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 29.04.2010 HAD HELD AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION HAS SHOWN SALE OF HUSK. TOTAL QUANTITY OF HUSK SOLD DUR ING THE YEAR WAS 13,280 QUINTALS, OUT OF WHICH 3969 QUINTALS WER E SOLD TO M/S A.P. ORGANICS. THE AVERAGE RATE OF SALE TO M/S A.P. ORGANICS WAS RS. 99/-. THE SALE OF HUSK TO M/S A.P. ORGANICS 7 HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHE R, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HUSK WEIGHING 9310.40 QUINTALS IN CASH, ON DIFFERENT DATES AT DIFFERENT RATES AVERAGING BETWEE N RS. 89/- TO RS. 100/- PER QUINTALS. THE TOTAL SALE PRICE OF THE HUSK WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AT RS. 8,73,497/-. THE A VERAGE SALE PRICE WORKS TO RS. 93.81 PER QUINTAL. THE SAID SALE S WERE MADE IN CASH AND ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT W HICH IN TURN ARE AUDITED BY THE AUDITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPARED THE RATE OF SALES AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE RI CE HUSK WITH THE RATE OF PURCHASE BY THREE DIFFERENT CONCERNS I. E. INDIAN ACRYLICS LTD, M/S MILKFED AND M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE DATA INCORPORATED IN PARA 2.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE OF RIC E HUSK REFLECTED BY THE SAID PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE SAM E IS AT VARIANCE, AND AVERAGE RATE WAS APPLIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO OVERHEAD EX PENDITURE OF TRANSPORTATION, LOADING / UNLOADING AND MIDDLEMAN C OMMISSION WAS ACCEDED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DEDUCTI ON OF RS. 50/- PER QUINTAL WAS ALLOWED FROM THE NET RATE APPL IED MONTH- WISE. 7. THE ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DEPICT A TRUE ST ATE OF AFFAIRS UNLESS SOME EVIDENCE IS FOUND TO BE CONTRAR Y. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE, BEING FOUND AND BROUG HT ON RECORD, AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO MERIT I N REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS AND MAKINGS ADDITIONS ON ESTIMATE BASI S. THE BOOK RESULTS SHOWN BY AN ASSESSEE CAN BE COMPARED W ITH ANOTHER CONCERN IN CASE THERE ARE IDENTICAL CIRCUMS TANCES. MERELY BECAUSE TWO CONCERN /S ARE ENGAGED IN SAME B USINESS CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR ADOPTING THE RATES OF PURCH ASE / SALE SHOWN BY ONE CONCERN AS THE RATES OF SALE / PURCHAS E OF THE OTHER CONCERN. THE RESULTS SHOWN BACKED BY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE REJECTED ON THE SURMISES THAT THE RATES O F PURCHASES / SALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS AT VARIANCE WITH THOSE BY OTHER CONCERN, UNLESS IT IS PROVED WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY TWO WE RE UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND TWO CONCERNS WERE DEALI NG WITH IDENTICAL COMMODITIES. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS DE ALING IN THE SALE OF RICE HUSK, WHICH IS AN AGRICULTURAL COMMODI TY AND MERELY BECAUSE THE SALE RATE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE PURCHASE RATE S HOWN BY THREE CONCERNS, CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE BRO UGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THE QUALITY OF PRODUCT DEALT IN BY THE TWO CONCERNS AND THE QUANTITY PURCHASED / SOLD. FURTHE R, IF WE COMPARE THE PURCHASE RATES OF THE THREE CONCERNS IN TER SE, THERE IS VARIANCE OF RS. 150/- TO RS. 196/- PER QUINTAL FOR THE RICE HUSK PURCHASED BY THESE CONCERNS. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE NO DEFECT HAS BEEN FOUND IN TH E BOOK ENTRIES OF THE ASSESSEE, MERELY BECAUSE THE RATES O F SALE OF RICE HUSK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT TALLY WITH PURCHA SE RATES SHOWN BY ANOTHER CONCERN, CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR R EJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS AND ADOPTION OF AVERAGE RATE FOR COMPU TING THE VALUE OF HUSK SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE YEAR , IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND TO THE CONTRARY, IS N OT JUSTIFIED. HENCE THE SAME IS REJECTED. 8 8 WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE WORKING OF THE VALUE OF S ALE CONSIDERATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF 9310.40 QUINT AL OF RICE HUSK SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCE D THE LEDGER ACCOUNT TO JUSTIFY THE SALE OF RICE HUSK. THE COMPA RISON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH PURCHASES MADE BY THR EE DIFFERENT PARTIES DOES NOT STAND THE TEST AS THE RELEVANT DET AILS IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THEM ARE NEITHER AVAILABLE ON RECORD NOR WERE THEY MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS BEING AN AGRICULTURE PRODUCT, NO SET STANDARD CAN BE LAID TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF A PARTICULAR PRODUCT SOLD OR PURCHASED BY A PERSON VIS--VIS THE SAME PRODUCT DEALT IN BY THE OTHER PE RSON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE APPLICABILITY OF HIGHER VALUE AS COMPAR ED TO THE RATES REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE SALE OF RICE HUSK SHOWN AT THE RATE OF 96.60 PAISA PER QUINTAL, SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, HAS BEEN ACCEPTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT, THE RESULTS SHOWN FOR THE YEAR MERITS TO BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADD ITION OF RS. 1,04,819/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF HU SK SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED. 15. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS IDENTIC AL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN SHRI MANPREET SINGH DHILLON VS. ITO (SUPRA) AND SH.SATINDER KUMAR PROP. M/S GURU KIRPA RICE MILLS, DHURI VS. ITO (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DELE TE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,07,558/-. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 20 TH MARCH, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 9