The ITO, Ward-1(3),, Surat v. Mudra Prints Pvt.Ltd.,,

ITA 499/AHD/2009 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 49920514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AABCM6299D
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 499/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-1(3),, Surat
Respondent Mudra Prints Pvt.Ltd.,,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 11-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 11-07-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 16-02-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 11/07/2011 DRAFTED ON: 13/0 7/2011 ITA NO.499/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 THE ITO WARD-1(3) SURAT VS. MUDRA PRINTS LTD. 238 SURAT BARDOLI ROAD VILLAGE JOLWA TAL.PALSANA DIST.SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AABCM 6299 D (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) AND CO NO.50/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2002-03 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.499/AHD/2009) MUDRA PRINTS LTD. THE IT O TAL.PALSANA DIST.SURAT VS. WARD-1(3) SURAT (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI B.L.YADAV D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI R.N. VEPARI A.R. O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE REVENUE WH ICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-I SURAT DATED 15/12/2008 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS IN CROSS OBJECTION. 2. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL. (A) ITA NO.499/AHD/2009 (REVENUES APPEAL) FOR A.Y. 200 2-03 GROUNDS READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO.499/AHD/2009(BY REVENUE) & CO NO.50/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. MUDRA PRINTS LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 2 - (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I SURAT HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTIN G THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. OF RS.74 25 225/- TO RS.16 13 749/- HOLDING THAT A. THE A.O. HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORDS ANY MATERI ALS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN THE FABRICS OF 4 95 015 MTRS WHICH WAS NOTICED TO HAVE BEEN CLANDESTINELY REMOVED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECORDING IT IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND EXCISE RECORDS. B. THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORTS TO REBUT THE STATEMENTS FILED BY THE PARTIES WHO HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN SUCH FABRICS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PROCESS ING. WITH APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL FACTS THAT DURING TH E COURSE OF PREVENTIVE CHECKS OF CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT BEF ORE THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED TO HAVE R ECEIVED SUCH FABRICS FROM ANY SUCH JOB WORK PARTIES BUT ON THE CONTRARY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES HAVE FOUND UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE REGISTER AND KACHCHA CHALLANS WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THEIR REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 2.1. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDI NG ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE IT ACT 1961 D ATED 31/12/2007 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PRO CESSING OF ART SILK CLOTH. AN ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUST OMS DEPARTMENT AT BUSINESS PREMISES ON 26/11/2001. IT WAS NOTICED THAT GREY FABRIC MEASURING 4 83 220 MTRS. WAS PROCESSED AND THAT A FINISHED PRODUCT MEASURING 4 58 109 MTRS. WAS REMOVED FROM THE MILL PREMISES ITA NO.499/AHD/2009(BY REVENUE) & CO NO.50/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. MUDRA PRINTS LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 3 - WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF CENTRAL EXCISE INVOICE AND WITH OUT PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY. AS PER THE FINDING OF THAT DE PARTMENT THE ASSESSEE HAD REMOVED CLANDESTINELY THE FINISHED FABRIC OF R S.68 71 635/-. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED THAT ONE OF THE DIRECTORS SHRI SAND EEP A. KHAITAN HAS ACCEPTED THE ALLEGED ILLICIT REMOVING OF FINISHED F ABRIC MEASURING 4 58 109 MTRS. THEREUPON THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O PROVIDE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF STOCK MANUFACTURED. THE AS SESSEE HAS REPLIED THAT DAY-TO-DAY STOCK REGISTER WAS NOT MAINTAINED SINCE DOING ONLY JOB-WORK. 2.2. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE A D ETAILED DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RESULTANTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 145(3) OF THE I.T.ACT. IN RESPECT OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS MADE AFTER A PREVENTIVE CHECK CARRIED OUT AT THE PR EMISES OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT IT WAS DETECTED TH AT UNACCOUNTED FINISHED FABRIC TOTALLING TO 4 95 015 MTRS WAS REMO VED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECORDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ON THAT BASIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION VI DE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH. 20. ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN ABOVE ALL THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DULY REBUTTED AND REJECT ED. IT IS CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN THE PRACTICE OF UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION AND ITS CLANDESTINE REMOVAL WITHOUT RECO RDING THE SAME IN ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF EX CISE DEPARTMENT ACTION TOGETHER WITH THE DISCREPANCIES NOTICED AND DISCUSSED IN PARA-A OF THIS ORDER THEREFORE CONSTITUTE A SOLID EVIDENCE OF UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION AND SALE ACTIVITY CARRIED OU T BY THE ITA NO.499/AHD/2009(BY REVENUE) & CO NO.50/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. MUDRA PRINTS LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 4 - ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. AS DISCUSSED IN ABOVE PA RAS THE ASSESSEE HAD CLANDESTINELY REMOVED FINISHED FABRIC OF 4 95 015 METERS WITHOUT RECORDING IT INTO ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCO UNT AS WELL AS EXCISE RECORDS. THE RELEVANT GRAY FABRIC P ROCURED IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS PARTIES AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED AND THE FINISHED FABRIC HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD CLANDEST INELY BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT RECORDING IT INTO ITS REGULAR BOOK S OF ACCOUNT. THE TOTAL VALUE OF FINISHED FABRIC REMOVED CLANDEST INELY WAS WORKED OUT BY APPLYING RS.15 PER METER AND CONSIDER ED AT RS.74 25 225/-. THIS AMOUNT INCLUDES VALUE OF GRAY PROCESSING CHARGES @ 3.26 AVERAGE PER METER AS SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BOTH. ACCORDI NGLY THE ENTIRE VALUE OF FINISHED FABRIC I.E. RS.74 25 225/- IS ADD ED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CONCEALED ITS PARTICULARS OF INCOME THE PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) R.W. EXPLANATION 1 THERETO IS INITIAT ED. BEING AGGRIEVED THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF NON- MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER ETC. AT LENGTH AND T HEREAFTER CONCLUDED THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS CORRECT. IN RESPECT OF THE QUANTUM ADDITION THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GRANTED PART RELIEF AND DRAWN THE CONCLUSION AS FOLLOWS: HENCE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GU JARAT HIGH COURT IN THIS CASE SINCE THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RE CORD TO SHOW THE PURCHASE OF FABRIC THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF FABRIC IS DELETED. HOWEVER IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS IN FACT CLANDESTINELY PROCESSED T HE ENTIRE CLOTH OF 495015 METERS AND THEREFORE THE PROCESSING CHARGE S @ RS.3.26 PER METER MENTIONED BY THE A.O. IN PARA-20 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THEREFO RE THE ADDITION ITA NO.499/AHD/2009(BY REVENUE) & CO NO.50/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. MUDRA PRINTS LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 5 - ON ACCOUNT OF PROCESSING CHARGES IS SUSTAINED BUT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF FABRIC IS DELETED. THEREFORE T HE ADDITION SUSTAINED AMOUNTS TO RS.16 13 749/- AND THE BALANCE ADDITION IS DELETED. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALL OWED. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE MR.B.L.YADAV APPEARED AND VEHEMENTL Y ARGUED THAT ONCE AN ANOTHER AUTHORITY I.E. CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT HAVE DETECTED IRREGULARITY IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE A SSESSEE AND UNEARTHED THE CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF FABRIC THEREFORE IT WAS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO FIX BURDEN ON THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO FURTHER MAKE INVESTIGATION IN THIS REGARD. THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS WRONG IN PLACING RELIANCE ON THOSE DECISIONS WHICH WERE ON DIFFERENT FACTS. ONCE THE ENTIRE PROCESSING CHARGES WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEN THERE WAS NO SCOPE OF GRANTING PAR T RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO PLEADED THAT AT THE MOST THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD HAVE WAITED THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS SUBJUDIC E BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS SURAT. 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR.R.N.VEPARI APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). HE HAS ARGUED THAT THE INVES TIGATION HAS NOT ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE REMOVAL OF GOODS HAVE ACTUALLY BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF THE STATEMENT OF ONE O F THE DIRECTORS RECORDED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT THE LEARNED AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS INFORMED THAT THE SAME WAS RETRA CTED AND THEREAFTER THE CORRECT FACTS WERE STATED. HE HAS ALSO CONTES TED THAT THE STATEMENT OF ITA NO.499/AHD/2009(BY REVENUE) & CO NO.50/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. MUDRA PRINTS LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 6 - THE TRANSPORTERS HAVE ALSO REVEALED THAT THE GOODS SEIZED WERE NOT BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT BY SOME OTHER CONCERN. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FURTHER PLEADED THAT THOSE GOODS WERE NOT DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO ELICIT REMOVAL OF GOODS WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO EXAM INED THE CONTENTS OF THE COMPILATION FILED CONSISTING THE SHOW-CAUSE NO TICES ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS SURAT THE ASSESSEES REPLY CERTAIN DETAILS OF STOCK AFFIDAVIT OF ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY AND THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED. THE ISSUE OF CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF GOODS WITHOUT RECORDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN FACT HINGES ON THREE PIVOTS. AT ONE SIDE THERE WAS A PREVENTIVE OPERATION ON 26/11/2001 A T THE MILL PREMISES OF M/S.SANTHOSH TEXTILE UNDER PR OPRIETORSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. ON INVESTIGATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THE GRAY FABRIC WAS PROCESSED AND DYED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINI SHED PRODUCT WAS REMOVED WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF CENTRAL EXCISE INVOICE. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY LEVIABLE ON THE SAID FINISHED PRODUCT. THE EXACT MEASUREMENT OF THE FIN ISHED FABRIC WAS NOTED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT THAT WE HAV E MENTIONED IN ABOVE PARAGRAPHS. THE RESULT OF THE SAID INVESTIGA TION AS FAR AS INCOME- TAX PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED WAS THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD APPLIED THE VALUE OF THE FINISHED FABRIC AT RS.15/- PER METER AND ALSO HELD THAT THE PROCESSING CHARGES @ 3.26/- PER METER WERE INCLUSIVE IN THE SAID ITA NO.499/AHD/2009(BY REVENUE) & CO NO.50/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. MUDRA PRINTS LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 7 - WORKING AND THUS MADE AN ADDITION OF THE TOTAL VALU E OF THE FINISHED FABRIC AT RS.74 25 225/-. 6.1. AT AN ANOTHER SIDE AS AGAINST THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT THOUGH THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCO UNT WERE PROPER BUT ONLY THE PROCESSING CHARGES @ RS.3.26 PER METER SHO ULD BE SUBJECT TO TAX. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALSO AFFIRMED TH E FACT THAT THERE WAS CLANDESTINE REMOVAL OF ENTIRE CLOTH OF 4 95 015 MET ERS. HE HAS DIRECTED NOT TO ADD THE COST OF THE FABRICS. IT IS NOT CLEA R FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT HOW HE HAS TAKEN THIS DEC ISION THAT THE COST OF THE FABRIC HAD ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE AS SESSEE. RATHER HE HAS NOT GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTIRELY D OING THE JOB-WORK AND NO PART OF THE STOCK HAD BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. TH IS QUESTION IS RELEVANT IN THE LIGHT OF THE RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION THR OUGH WHICH THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT HAD LEVIED THE DUTY ON THE FINISH ED GOODS. THIS FACT IS ALSO RELEVANT BECAUSE THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES HAV E RECOVERED LRS OF TRANSPORTERS AND SEIZED CERTAIN GOODS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DENIED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE GOODS RECOVERED AND MAINTAINED HIS STATEMENT THAT GRAY CLOTH WAS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PARTIES BUT TH AT STATEMENT REMAINED UNCORROBORATED. 6.2 THE THIRD ANGLE OF THIS PROBLEM IS THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE CENTRAL AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT. UNDISPUTEDLY THE ISSUE IS STILL SUBJUDICE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT. NO RULING OF THAT AUTHORITY SO FAR HA S BEEN PLACED BEFORE US THROUGH WHICH IT COULD BE HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED FI NISHED GOODS DID NOT BELONG TO ASSESSEE. THEREFORE IT WAS NOT JUSTIF IABLE ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO PREMATURELY DECIDE THIS ISS UE. AT THAT STAGE ITA NO.499/AHD/2009(BY REVENUE) & CO NO.50/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. MUDRA PRINTS LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 8 - WHEN THE ISSUE ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE FINISHED GOODS WAS NOT FINALIZED AND IT WAS NOT SURE WHETHER ONLY JOB CHAR GES WERE INVOLVED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FINISHED GOODS WHICH WERE DETE CTED BY THAT DEPARTMENT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS PEND ING BEFORE THE CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE POI NTS MENTIONED WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANC ES DEMANDS TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE STAGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO DECIDE DE NOVO AFTER CONSIDERING THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS STATED TO BE PENDING WITH THE CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS DEPA RTMENT. IN FACT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE QUESTION OF A PPLICATION OF PROCESSING CHARGES ON THE MATERIAL IN QUESTION WAS NOT DISCUSSED. THE A.O. HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE OWNERSHIP ASPECT IN THE LIGHT OF THE INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY TH E CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT AND WHETHER ONLY THE MATERIAL IN QUESTIO N WAS MEANT FOR JOB- WORK PURPOSE ONLY. HENCE THE A.O. IS NOW EXPECTED TO GIVE THE VERDICT ON ALL THE POINT DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE. IN THE RE SULT THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. 8. REVENUES APPEAL IS HEREBY ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (B) ASSESSEES CO NO.50/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2002-03 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.499/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2002-03) 9. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER: ITA NO.499/AHD/2009(BY REVENUE) & CO NO.50/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. MUDRA PRINTS LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 9 - (1) REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS : ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . 9.1. IN RESPECT OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD MADE AN ELABORATE DIS CUSSION AND THEREUPON NOTED CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES AND ON THAT B ASIS HE HAS ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRUE PROFIT COULD NOT BE WO RKED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ADDITION TO THE NON-MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN REGISTER S THERE WERE CERTAIN OTHER DISCREPANCIES WHICH WERE HIGHLIGHTED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER PERTAINING TO THE CONSUMPTION OF OIL COAL COLOUR & CHEMICALS ETC. THOSE DISCREPANCIES HAVE ALSO RESULTED INTO REJECTI ON OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE CIRCUMSTA NCES UNDER WHICH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THOSE FINDINGS. IN THE RESULT T HIS GROUND IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER: (II) ADDITION OF RS.16 13 749/- (1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN RETAIN ING ADDITION OF RS.16 13 749/- OUT OF RS.74 25 225/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF SO CALLED SUPPRESSED SALES . (2) THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS MISCONSTRUED THE FACTS IN RETAINING THE PART ADDITION. (3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ADD ITION IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.499/AHD/2009(BY REVENUE) & CO NO.50/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. MUDRA PRINTS LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 10 - 10.1. THIS CROSS OBJECTION RELATES TO THE GROUND O F THE REVENUE ALREADY DECIDED HEREINABOVE. WE HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS BACK TO THE STAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT TO D ECIDE DE NOVO HENCE ON THE SAME LINES THIS CROSS OBJECTION CAN BE SAID TO BE ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER: (III) DETERMINATION OF INCOME U/S.115JB OF THE ACT: - THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OU GHT TO HAVE DELETED DETERMINATION OF INCOME OF RS.16 51 570/- W ORKED OUT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF DIRECTING T6HE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTED THE BOOK PROFIT WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS WRON GLY ADDED IN DETERMINATION OF INCOME U/S.115JB OF THE I.T.ACT . 11.1 THIS CROSS OBJECTION WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE US BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HENCE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSE D. 12. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22 / 7 /2011 T.C. NAIR SR. PS ITA NO.499/AHD/2009(BY REVENUE) & CO NO.50/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. MUDRA PRINTS LTD. ASST.YEAR 2002-03 - 11 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-I SURAT 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION.. 13.7.2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 14.7.2011 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 22.7.11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK . 22.7.11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER