The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeal against the Tribunal's order dated 01.02.2021, which disposed of both the department's appeal and the assessee's cross objections. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's factual findings.
The appeal was failed and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 27/2021
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
M/s Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd., E 173, Udyog Vihar, Sriganganagar
----Respondent
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. K.K. Bissa. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : |
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
10/08/2021
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Income Tax Department.
The appeal has been sought to be filed by the appellant against the order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in ITA No.191/JODH/2019 and C.O. No.17/JODH/2019.
On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the Department has gone in appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed cross objection in that appeal and the same came to be disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order dated 01.02.2021.
Learned counsel for the Revenue drew our attention to para14 of impugned order and essentially contended that there has been suppression of production or sales outside the books of accounts. The Tribunal has come to the finding that the variation
(2 of 2)
[ITA-27/2021]
in the production as per DIP file and stock register has been ascribed to the reason that in the DIP register, measurement of the production was made by putting scale in the oil tank every day and in rounded units for internal purpose. The small difference of 1 cm in taking the DIP file may result in minor variation. It was a finding of fact that the total variation was less than 0.5 due to estimation.
Apart from the above, the Tribunal has come to hold taking into consideration the entire facts that the addition by the AO has been made on the basis of electricity consumption on crushing of per quintal Mustrad seeds in the month of August 2014, where the consumption was lowest. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Sulabh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (165 Taxman 258) in which this Court supported the case of the assessee and came to the findings that the AO has erred by taking the amount paid by the assessee for electricity consumption as base assumed the actual production to be more than what is disclosed and made the addition.
We are in complete agreement with the findings arrived at the Tribunal on question of facts. We do not find any justiciable ground to entertain the present appeal.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
Ashutosh-10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's order admitting the assessee's explanation regarding production variation and cross objections should be entertained.
Whether the Tribunal's findings on facts regarding electricity consumption and DIP measurements are justiciable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CIT Vs. Sulabh Marbles Pvt. Ltd.Explained¶19
CIT Vs. Sulabh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (165 Taxman 258)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Jodhpur
M/s Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd.
Indrajit Mahanty
Vinit Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
