Shree Ram Mine Chem Ind., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT., Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

ITSSA 92/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9074 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADIPKUMAR MAJUMDAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKESH M PATEL
• Keywords: Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Corroborative evidences; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

IT(SS) NO 92/A HD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD F .Y. 1989-90 TO 98-99 & 1-4-99 TO 16-1 1-99. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AH MEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI JM & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI A.M.) I.T.(SS) 92/AHD/2006 (BLOCK PERIOD F.Y.1989-90 TO 1998-99 & 1-4-1999 TO 16-11-1999) SHREE RAM MINE CHEM IND., C/O. MUKESH M. PATEL & CO., 3-4,VITHALBHAI BHAVAN, NR.S.P. COLONY RLY CROSSING, AHMEDABAD-380013. (APPELLANT) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA. (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAGFS 9560 P APPELLANT BY : SHRI MUKESH M. PATEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRADIPKUMAR MAJUMDAR, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 13-2-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 -5-2013 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A) XXI, AHMEDABAD DATED 17.2.2006. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED FROM THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTH ORITIES ARE AS UNDER: IT(SS) NO 92/A HD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD F .Y. 1989-90 TO 98-99 & 1-4-99 TO 16-1 1-99. 2 3. IN THIS CASE SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARR IED OUT AT VARIOUS PREMISES OF MANEK GROUP OF CASES ON 16-11-1999. DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF LOOSE PAPERS, FILES AS WELL AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AT T HE PREMISES OF M/S. SHRI RAM MINE CHEM (PVT.) LTD. WHEREIN THERE WERE N OTINGS REGARDING THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS AS WELL AS OTHER TRANSACTIONS SHO WING UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, PROCEEDINGS U /S. 158BD R.W.S. 158BC OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTI CE U/S. 158BC R.W.S. 158BD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16-7-2002 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE RETURN OF BLOCK PERIOD SHOWING UN DISCLOSED INCOME. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 17-5-2004 DECLARING TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS. NIL. THEREAFTER, ASSESSME NT WAS FRAMED U/S 158BD RWS 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.7.2004 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS 65,12,640/-. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 17.2.2006, PARTLY ALLOWED T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT( A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS: THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,06,583/- AND RS.30,90,646/- F OR FINANCIAL YEARS 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 RESPECTIVELY, IN RESPECT OF A LLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SAL ES. 1 ST GROUND IS WRT ADDITION OF RS 27,58,899/- 4. ON PERUSING THE PART-1 OF THE RETURN OF INCOME, A.O. NOTICED THE SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSED AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS UNDER:- A.Y. UNDISCLOSED INCOME RETURNED INCOME. NET INCOME . 1999-00 33,87,355/- (-) 9,33,460/- 24,53, 895/- IT(SS) NO 92/A HD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD F .Y. 1989-90 TO 98-99 & 1-4-99 TO 16-1 1-99. 3 2000-01 (-) 43,36,616/- (-) 32,98,060/- (-) 76,34, 676/- AS SUCH THERE WAS AN AGGREGATE UNDISCLOSED NET LOSS OF RS.9,49,261/- WHICH WAS SHOWN AS NIL IN THE BLOCK RETURN. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE FURNISHED REVISED F IGURE OF PURCHASE AND SALES FOR F.Y. 1998-99 UPTO 16-11-1999 AS A RES ULT OF WHICH THE LOSS DECLARED AT RS.9,48,760/- IN THE ORIGINAL BLOCK RET URN WAS REVISED AT LOSS OF RS.11,46,540/-. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION, A PRODUCTION REGISTER MARKED A- 26 RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND. IT CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF DAY TO DAY PRODUCTION OF STOCK BEGINNING FROM 22-10-1998 T O 16-11-1999. FURTHER, SOME LOOSE PAPERS WERE ALSO FOUND AND SEIZED AND WH ICH WERE MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-17 AND IT SHOWED THE QUANTITATIVE DETAIL S OF STOCK MAINTAINED ON MONTHLY BASIS FOR THE SAME PERIOD FOR WHICH THE PRODUCTION OF STOCK WAS SHOWN AT ANNEXURE A-26. AO NOTICED THAT THOUGH THE FIGURES MENTIONED IN BOTH THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS PERTAINED TO THE PRODUCTIO N CARRIED OUT IN THE SAME PERIOD BUT THE FIGURES IN BOTH THE DOCUMENTS W ERE DIFFERENT AND THEREFORE THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS SUPPRESSI ON IN RESPECT OF THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION AND THE PRODUCTION DISCLOSED IN T HE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ASSESSEE WAS THUS ASKED TO RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCY. ASSESSEE INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE DATA IN ANNE XURE A-17 REPRESENTED PRODUCTION DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WHEREAS THE DATA SHOWN UNDER ANNEXURE A-26 R EFLECTED THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION CARRIED OUT IN THE PERIOD OCTOBER, 1998 TO OCTOBER,1999. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AGGREGATE DIFFERENCE WOR KED OUT AT 1199.573 MT OF WHICH THE AVERAGE SALES PRICE WORKED OUT TO RS 4 8 LACS AS AGAINST THE IT(SS) NO 92/A HD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD F .Y. 1989-90 TO 98-99 & 1-4-99 TO 16-1 1-99. 4 TOTAL UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS 74 LACS FOR FY 1998-9 9. SIMILARLY, FOR FY 1999-2000, THE NET DIFFERENCE WORKED OUT TO RS 61 L ACS AS AGAINST THE UNACCOUNTED SALE OF RS 62 LACS AND THUS IN BOTH THE YEARS IT HAD SHOWN HIGHER AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES. 6. A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSES SEE HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ANNE XURE A-26 SHOWS ACTUAL PRODUCTION I.E. ACCOUNTED AND UNACCOUNTED AN D ANNEXURE A-17 SHOWS PRODUCTION AS PER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A ND THE DIFFERENCE OF STOCK SHOWS AS PER ANNEXURE A-26 AND A-17 WOULD REF LECT UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION WAS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE AND WAS WI THOUT ANY BASIS. HE WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE DOCUMENT SEI ZED RELATED TO ASSESSEE THE ONUS WAS ENTIRELY AND HEAVILY ON THE ASSESSEE T O EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS AND TO SUBMIT PROPER DOCUMENTARY P ROOF AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. A.O. FURTHER OBS ERVED THAT STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME DID NOT TALLY WITH THE ANNEXURES SHOWN IN AN NEXURE A-17. HE WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVID ENCE IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE STOCK SHOWN AS PER ANNEXURE A-26 INCLUDES STOCK WHICH ARE SHOWN AS PER ANNEXURE A-17.HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE PRODUCTION OF STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER ANNEXURE A-17 WA S ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FROM THE STOCK SHOWN AS PER ANNEXURE A-26 . HE THUS CONSIDERED THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF STOCK AS PER ANNEXURE A-17 AN D ANNEXURE A-26 AT 2204.435 MT. TON (502.421 MT. TON AND ANNEXURE A-17 + 1702.44 MT. TON AS PER ANNEXURE A-26). HE THUS ARRIVED AT THE TOTA L VALUE OF STOCK AT RS.4000 PER MT. TON I.E. RS.88,17,740/- FOR A.Y. 19 98-99 AS AGAINST THE IT(SS) NO 92/A HD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD F .Y. 1989-90 TO 98-99 & 1-4-99 TO 16-1 1-99. 5 VALUE OF RS.74 LACS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SI MILARLY FOR F.Y. 1999-00 AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PRODUCTION SHOWN IN A NNEXURE A-17 & ANNEXURE A-26 HE WORKED OUT THE TOTAL PRODUCTION AT 2326.598 MT (I.E. 398.624 + 1927.974) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE RATE OF RS.4,000/- PER MT. TON HE ARRIVED AT THE VALUE OF STOCK OF RS.93,06,39 2/- AS AGAINST THE UNACCOUNTED SALES DISCLOSED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 62 ,15,746/-. HE THUS CONSIDERED THE UNDISCLOSED SALE FOR F.Y. 1998-99 AT RS.88,17,740/- AS AGAINST THAT OF RS. 74,11,157/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE REVISED STATEMENT AND SIMILARLY FOR THE PERIOD 1-4-1999 TO THE DATE OF SEARCH 16-11- 1999 THE SAME WAS CONSIDERED AT RS.93,06,392/- AS A GAINST RS.62,15,746/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE THUS MADE ADDITION OF RS.14,06,583/- (RS. 88,17,740 74,11,157 FOR F.Y.1 998-99) AND OF RS.30,90,646/- (RS.93,06,692 RS.62,15,746) FOR TH E OTHER PERIOD AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF A.O ., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT (A). 7. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT I FIND THAT THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE ANNEXURE A-26 CONTAIN S THE DETAILS OF CONSOLIDATED PRODUCTION ACCOUNTED AND UNACCOUNTED I S THAT IT CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF GAS CONSUMPTIONS FOR VARIOU S PERIODS WHICH IT(SS) NO 92/A HD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD F .Y. 1989-90 TO 98-99 & 1-4-99 TO 16-1 1-99. 6 TALLY WITH THE FIGURES OF THE GAS READING AS PER TH E GAS BILLS ISSUED BY THE GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., (GAIL).THIS IS THE ONLY FACT ON WHICH THE LD. A.R. OF THE APPELLANT HAS HEAVILY RELIED UP ON TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT ANNEXURE A-26 CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF TOTAL PRODUCTION UNACCOUNTED AS WELL AS ACCOUNTED. IN MY VIEW THIS D ETAILS OF GAS CONSUMPTION RECORDED IN ANNEXURE A-26 DOES NOT GIVE ANY INDICATION TO THE FACT THAT ANNEXURE A-26 CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF TOTAL PRODUCTION I.E. UNACCOUNTED AS WELL AS ACCOUNTED. EXCEPT THIS THE APPELLANT IS NOT ABLE TO PIN POINT ANY ENTRY EITHER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SEIZED OR ANY OTHER PAPER SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH CARRIED OUT IN SUPPORT OF HIS ABOVE CLAIM. THEREFORE, I COMPLETEL Y AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS NOTH ING ON RECORD THAT THE ANNEXURE A-26 SHOWS THE UNACCOUNTED AS WELL AS THE ACCOUNTED PRODUCTION. THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE ENTRY IN A-2 6 WHICH RELATES TO ANY ENTRY TO ANNEXURE A-17. IT IS IMPORTANT TO MENTION HERE THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH ANOTHER DOCUMENT WAS SEIZED AS ANNEXURE 29. THE BA CK SIDE OF PAGE 19 OF ANNEXURE A-29 CONTAINS THE ENTRIES OF TO TAL STOCK OF SODA, SILICA AND GLASS VALUED AT RS.42,70,060/- AS IN 31- 3-99 WHICH TALLY FOR ENTIRELY WITH THE DETAILS OF STOCK SHOWN ON THE BAC K SIDE OF PAGE 19 OF ANNEXURE 17 BUT DOES NOT TALLY AT ALL WITH THE DETA ILS OF STOCK IN ANNEXURE 26. THIS ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT ANNEXUR E A-26 WHICH IS CLAIMED TO CONTAIN THE TOTAL PRODUCTION STOCK (ACCO UNTED AS WELL AS UNACCOUNTED) ACTUALLY DOES NOT CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF TOTAL PRODUCTION I.E. ACCOUNTED AS WELL AS UNACCOUNTED. I ALSO AGRE E WITH THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE A.O. THAT THE APPELLANT IS MANUFACTURING AND IT(SS) NO 92/A HD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD F .Y. 1989-90 TO 98-99 & 1-4-99 TO 16-1 1-99. 7 SELLING THE SAME ITEMS DURING BOTH THE ABOVE TWO FI NANCIAL YEARS AND IN ONE PARTICULAR FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 1998-99 IT HA S SHOWN UNDISCLOSED PROFIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,13,435/- ON THE ACCOU NTED SALE OF RS.74.11 LAKHS WHEREAS IN JUST NET YEAR HUGE UNACCO UNTED LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.36,59,975/- IS CLAIMED ON ACCOUNTED SA LE OF RS.62,15,746/-.ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS OF UNACCOUNTED SALES OF ABOVE TWO FINANCIAL YEARS THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNDISCLOSED TRADING RES ULTS AND NET RESULTS OF THESE TWO YEARS. EVEN AT THE APPELLATE S TAGE THE APPELLANT IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE TWO CONTRADICTORY RESULTS FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE FINANCIAL YEARS. THEREFORE, I AGREE WI TH THE A.O. FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT TO DETERMINE THE CO RRECT MAGNITUDE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD, THE CONTEN TS OF THE ABOVE TWO DOCUMENTS I. E. ANNEXURE A-26 AS WELL AS A-17 H AVE TO BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD T HAT THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED IN CALCULATING THE TOTAL MANUFACTURED SAL ES OF SODIUM SILICATE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.88,17,740/- FOR THE F.Y. 1998-9 9 AS AGAINST SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AT RS.74,11,157/- IN THE BLOCK RET URN AND SIMILARLY, TOTAL SALES FOR THE SECOND PERIOD I.E. FOR THE PER IOD FROM 1-4-99 TO THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. 16-11-1999 AT RS.93,06,592/- AS AGAINST RS.62,15,746/- SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. HENCE, UNDIS CLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALE OF F.Y. 1998-99 A ND F.Y. 1999- 2000 OF RS.14,06,588/- AND RS.30,90,646/- RESPECTIV ELY ARE CONFIRMED. IT(SS) NO 92/A HD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD F .Y. 1989-90 TO 98-99 & 1-4-99 TO 16-1 1-99. 8 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. BEFORE US LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ANNEXURES A-26 AND A-17 FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WERE PRODUCTION REGISTE RS AND ANNEXURE A-26 REFLECTED CONSOLIDATED PRODUCTION (BOTH ACCOUNTED A ND UNACCOUNTED) WHEREAS ANNEXURE A-17 PERTAINED TO THE RECORD OF PR ODUCTION AS REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE THEREFORE, SUB MITTED THAT THE FIGURES CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE A-17 WERE EFFECTIVELY PART AN D PARCEL OF ANNEXURE A- 26. WHILE FILING THE BLOCK RETURN FOR ACCOUNTING P ERIOD F.Y. 1998-99 AND 1999-00 I.E. UPTO THE DATE OF SEARCH ASSESSEE OFFER ED THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS CARVED OUT FROM SEIZED ACCOUNTING RECORDS . THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT A NNEXURE A-26 REFLECTED THE ENTIRE PRODUCTION BOTH ACCOUNTED AND UNACCOUNTE D AND ANNEXURE A-17 FIGURES ACTUALLY REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. A.O. COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS OF UNACCOU NTED PRODUCTION BASED ON THE PRODUCTION REGISTERS. HE ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUD ED THAT THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF PRODUCTION WAS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF BOTH THE PRODUCTION REGISTERS VIZ. ANNEXURE A-17 AND A-26. T HE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CLOSING STOCK AS REFLECTED IN TH E TAX AUDIT REPORT TALLIED WITH THE QUANTITATIVE FIGURES OF CLOSING STOCK FORM ING PART OF ANNEXURE A-17. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FIGURES OF PURCHASE A ND CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL IS APPEARING IN THE AUDIT REPORT TALLY WIT H THE FIGURES SHOWN IN ANNEXURE A-17 WHICH PROVES THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIO N THAT ANNEXURE A- 17 REPRESENTS THE FIGURES OF PRODUCTION WHICH ARE D ULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNEXURE A-2 6, LD. A.R., SUBMITTED AND POINTED OUT AT PAGE 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE DE TAILS OF GAS IT(SS) NO 92/A HD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD F .Y. 1989-90 TO 98-99 & 1-4-99 TO 16-1 1-99. 9 CONSUMPTION AND CHARGES PAID TO GAS AUTHORITY OF IN DIA. FROM THE AFORESAID DOCUMENT HE POINTED OUT THE GAS READINGS REFLECTED FOR VARIOUS MONTHS AS SHOWN IN THAT ANNEXURE TALLY WITH THAT OF GAS BILLS ISSUED BY GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., AND THE COPIES OF WHICH WE RE ANNEXURE AT PAGES 68 TO 78 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SIMILARLY, HE POINTED OUT THE GAS READINGS PLACED AT PAGE 79 OF THE PAPER BOOK PERTAINING TO THE PERI OD 1-4-99 TO 15-11-99 AND ALSO POINTED OUT THE COPIES OF THE INVOICES OF GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., AT PAGE 80 TO 90 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS HE POINTED OUT THE GAS READINGS WHICH TALLIED WITH THE BILLS AND WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM PROVES THAT THE FIGURES OF PRODUCT ION AND REFLECTED IN ANNEXURE A-26 REFLECT THE ENTIRE PRODUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FIGURES OF GAS CONSUMPTION AS PE R THE INVOICES OF GAIL HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXPENSES IN THE REGULAR BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED ANY FURTHER GAS CONSUMPTION F OR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCTION. THE LD. A.R. THUS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE T HE PRODUCTION FIGURES OF A-26 ARE TAKEN TO BE CONSOLIDATED FIGURE OF PRODUCT ION AND AFTER ARRIVING AT THE SALES VALUE AT THE RATE OF RS.4000 PER MT. TON IS ADOPTED BY THE A.O. CONSIDERING THE FIGURES OF THE SALES ALREADY REFLEC TED THE RESULTANT FIGURE OF UNACCOUNTED FIGURES OF SALES ARE FOR FINALIZING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WOULD BE ACTUAL FIGURE SHOWN IN THE BLOCK RETURN. THUS T HERE WOULD BE NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF A.O. TO MAKE ANY ADDIT ION ON SUPPRESSION OF SALES OVER AND ABOVE THE VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE BLOCK RETURN. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COUR SE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT (A), THE SUBMISSIONS WER E GIVEN TO A.O. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. A. O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE IT(SS) NO 92/A HD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD F .Y. 1989-90 TO 98-99 & 1-4-99 TO 16-1 1-99. 10 SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT TO THE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGES 14 TO 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME CAN BE C ONSIDERED ONLY AFTER REDUCING THE PRODUCTION SHOWN IN ANNEXURE A-17 FROM THAT OF ANNEXURE A- 26. HE THUS URGED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O . BE DELETED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR. RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE A.O. AND CIT (A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE COPY OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL PLACE D ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE FIGURES OF GAS CONSUMPTION AS SHOWN IN THE SEIZ ED MATERIAL ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT OF THE COPIES OF THE BILLS ISSU ED BY GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GAS CONSUMPTION FULLY TALLIES WITH THAT OF THE BILLS ISSUED BY GAS AUTHOR ITY OF INDIA LTD., PROVES THAT ANNEXURE A-26 CONTAINS THE ACCOUNTED AS WELL AS UNA CCOUNTED PRODUCTION. THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT COMMENTED OR GIVEN ANY FINDING WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSUMPTIO N OF GAS AND THE CORRESPONDING PRODUCTION. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE V IEW THAT THIS ASPECT NEEDS EXAMINATION BY A.O. AND REMIT THIS ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO EXAMINE THE ASPECT OF CONSUMPTI ON OF GAS VIS--VIS PRODUCTION AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE NECESSARY EVID ENCE GIVE FACTUAL FINDING AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. A.O. SHALL ALSO GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER ASS ESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION REQUIRED B Y THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. THUS, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT(SS) NO 92/A HD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD F .Y. 1989-90 TO 98-99 & 1-4-99 TO 16-1 1-99. 11 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14 -5-2013 SD/- SD/- (D.K. TYAGI) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. AHMEDABAD. TRUR COPY S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD.