Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ito, Mandi Gobindgarh vs M/S Modi Oil & General Mills, Mandi ... on 14 February, 2017
I N T H E I N C O M E T A X AP P EL L AT E T R I BU N A L
D I VI S I O N B EN C H , C H AN D I G A R H
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.149/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
ITO, Vs M/s Modi Oil & General Mills,
Ward - 2, Railway Godown Road,
Mandi Gobindgarh Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAAFT5253C
ITA No.112/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Modi Oil & General Mills, Vs DCIT,
Railway Godown Road, Circle,
Mandi Gobindgarh Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAAFT5253C
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No.261/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
M/s Vimal Alloys (P)Ltd Vs. DCIT,Circle,
Amloh Road Mandi Gobindgarh.
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAACV7801M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.247/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
ACIT,Circle, Vs M/s Vimal Alloys (P)Ltd
Mandi Gobindgarh Amloh Road
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AAACV7801M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
2
Assessee By : Sh. K.P.Bajaj,Adv
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No.920/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Bhathal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. I.T.O.
C-53, Focal Point Ward-1
Mandi Gobindgarh. Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AAHFB 9310M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.926/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
I.T.O. Ward-1, Vs M/s Bhathal Steel Rolling Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh C-53, Focal Point
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AAHFB 9310M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Kumar Ghera,Adv
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No.38/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Ashirwad Strips P.Ltd Vs. JCIT,
43, Sector-3, Block-A Range
Loha Bazar, Mandi Gobindgarh Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAFCA4857M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.39/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
I.T.O. Ward-2, Vs M/s Ashirwad Strips P.Ltd
Mandi Gobindgarh 43, Sector-3, Block-A
Loha Bazar, Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAFCA4857M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal,Adv
Sh. Kushal Chopra, CA
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
3
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No.531/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Dhiman Iron & Vs. DCIT,Circle,
Steel Inds P.Ltd. Mandi Gobindgarh
G.T.Road
Khanna Side,
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AACCD5702F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.586/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
ACIT,Circle Vs M/s Dhiman Iron &
Mandi Gobindgarh Steel Industries P.Ltd.
G.T.Road, Khann Side,
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AACCD5702F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar &
Ms.Kanika Gupta
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No.401/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
M/s Bansal Iron & Vs. DCIT,Circle
Steel Rolling Mills, Mandi Gobindgarh.
G.T.Road,Sirhind Side
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFB 4635R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.335/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
DCIT, Circle Vs M/s Bansal Iron &
Mandi Gobindgarh Steel Rolling Mills
G.T.Road,Sirhind Side
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFB 4635R
(Appellant) (Respondent
Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar &
Ms.Kanika Gupta
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
4
ITA No.87/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s R.K. Place & Re-Rolling Mills Vs. ITO,Ward-1
G.T.Road, Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AADFR6507N
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.153/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
ITO Ward-1 Vs M/s R.K.Plate & Re-Rolling Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh G.T.Road,
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AADFR6507N
(Appellant) (Respondent
Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar &
Ms.Kanika Gupta
Department by : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 918/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Raj Steel Rolling Mills Vs. JCIT,
Guru Ki Nagri, Range Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AABFR7828J
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.925/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
ITO Ward-2 Vs M/s Raj Steel Rolling Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh Guru Ki Nagri,
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFR 7828J
ITA No 348/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Raj Steel Rolling Mills Vs. ACIT,Circle
Guru Ki Nagri Mandi Gobindgarh.
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFR7828J
(Appellant) (Respondent)
5
ITA No.497/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
ITO Ward-2 Vs M/s Raj Steel Rolling Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh Guru Ki Nagri,
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFR 7828J
ITA No 349/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
M/s Raj Steel Rolling Mills Vs. DCIT,Circle
Guru Ki Nagri Mandi Gobindgarh.
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFR7828J
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.616/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
ITO Ward-2 Vs M/s Raj Steel Rolling Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh Guru Ki Nagri,
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFR 7828J
(Appellant) (Respondent
Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar &
Ms.Kanika Gupta
Department By Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 268/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Royal Ispat Udyog Vs. DCIT,Circle
Vill Kumbh , Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh.
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAJFR 5217P
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.275/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
ITO Ward-1 Vs M/s Royal Ispat Udyog,
Mandi Gobindgarh Village Kumbh,Amloh Road,
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAJFR 5217P
6
ITA No 269/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Royal Ispat Udyog Vs. ACIT,Circle
Vill Kumbh , Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh.
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAJFR 5217P
(Appellant) (Respondent
ITA No 271/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
M/s Coldrip Steels P.Ltd Vs. ITO Ward-2
G.T.Road, Mandi Gobindgarh.
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAACC6945K
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. K.P.Bajaj
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 315/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s A.P.S. International Vs. ITO Ward-1
C/o Puri Enterprises, Mandi Gobindgarh.
Amloh Road, Near Rajdhani Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AANFA0835E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.449/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
ITO Ward-1 Vs M/s A.P.S. International,
Mandi Gobindgarh C/o Puri Enterprises,
Amloh Road, Near Rajdhani Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AANFA0835E
ITA No 316/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
M/s A.P.S. International Vs. ITO Ward-1
C/o Puri Enterprises, Mandi Gobindgarh.
Amloh Road, Near Rajdhani Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AANFA0835E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
7
Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 89/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Bharat Pipe Industry Vs. DCIT,Circle
C/o Sukhwinder Singh, Mandi Gobindgarh.
Ward-4, Near Satnam Kanta,
Gobindgarh Road, Amloh
PAN No. AAEFB 7311D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.152/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
I.T.O. Ward-1 Vs M/s Bharat Pipe Industry
Mandi Gobindgarh C/o Sukhwinder Singh,,
Ward-4, Near Satnam Kanta,
Gobindgarh Road, Amloh
PAN No. AAEFB 7311D
(Appellant) (Respondent
Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Goyal,C.A
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 147/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Natural Castings Vs. JCIT,Range,
Ambey Majra Road, Mandi Gobindgarh.
Village Mullanpur Kalan,
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AAFFN 4459F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.150/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
I.T.O. Ward-1 Vs M/s Natural Castings
Mandi Gobindgarh Ambey Majra Road
Village Mullanpur Kalan,
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AAFFN 4459F
(Appellant) (Respondent
8
Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal,Adv &
Sh KushaChopra,CA
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 333/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
DCIT,Circle Vs. M/s C.S.Castings Pvt.Ltd,
Mandi Gobindgarh. G.T.Raod,Model Town
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AACCC 1339D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.346/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
JCIT,Range Vs M/s C.S.Castings Pvt.Ltd,
Mandi Gobindgarh G.T.Raod,Model Town
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AACCC 1339D
(Appellant) (Respondent
Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar &
Ms.Kanika Gupta,CA
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 129/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
M/s Paradise Steel Rolling Mills Vs. I.T.O.Ward-2,
G.T.Road Mandi Gobindgarh
Khanna Side,
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AADFP 0406A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.151/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
I.T.O.Ward-1 Vs M/s Paradise Steel Rolling Mills,
Mandi Gobindgarh G.T.Raod, Khanna Side
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AADFP 0406A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Kushal Chopra
Respondent By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
9
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 49/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Lakshmi Steel Rolling Mills, Vs. JCIT,Rage
G.T.Road Mandi Gobindgarh
Sirhind Side,
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AAAFL 3827A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.45/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
A.C.I.T.,Circle Vs M/s Lakshmi Steel Rolling Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh G.T.Raod, Sirhind Side
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AAAFL 3827A
(Appellant) (Respondent
Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal,C.A
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 345/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
M/s Shree Krishna Steel Rolling, Vs. I.T.O.Ward-2
Mills, G.T.Road,Sirhind Side, Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. ABOFS9253J
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.445/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
I.T.O.Ward-2 Vs M/s Shree Krishna Steel Rolling Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh G.T.Raod, Sirhind Side
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. ABOFS 9253J
(Appellant) (Respondent
Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar &
Ms.Kanika Gupta,C.A's
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
10
ITA No 917/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Adarsh Steel Rolling Mills , Vs. DCIT,Circle,
G.T.Road, Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AACFA 5164F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.924/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
I.T.O.Ward-2 Vs M/s Adarsh Steel Rolling Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh G.T.Road,
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AACFA 5164F
ITA No 347/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Adarsh Steel Rolling Mills , Vs. DCIT,Circle,
G.T.Road, Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AACFA 5164F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.617/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
I.T.O.Ward-2 Vs M/s Adarsh Steel Rolling Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh G.T.Road,
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AACFA 5164F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar &
Ms.Kanika Gupta,C.A's
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 88/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Nabha Steel Ltd., Vs. DCIT,Circle,
G.T.Road,Sirhind Side, Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AACN6486G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
11
ITA No.114/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
A.C.I.T.,Circle Vs M/s Nabha Steel Ltd.,
Mandi Gobindgarh G.T.Raod,Sirhind Side
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AACN6486G
Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Goyal,C.A
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 400/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
M/s Bansal Alloys & Metals PVt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT,Circle,
G.T.Road,Sirhind Side, Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AAACB 7472L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.494/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
D.C.I.T.,Circle Vs M/s Bansal Alloys & Metal Pvt.Ltd.,
Mandi Gobindgarh G.T.Raod,Sirhind Side
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AAACB7472L
Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar &
Ms.Kanika Gupta,C.A's
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 237/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Hind Alloys Vs. I.T.O.Ward-1,
Village Kumbh,Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AADFH4996F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.273/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
D.C.I.T.,Circle Vs M/s Hind Alloys,
Mandi Gobindgarh Village Kumbh,Amloh Road
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AADFH4996F
12
Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Kushal Chopra
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 238/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Eden Steel Alloys, Vs. JCIT-Range,
Near Powergrid,Ambey Majra, Mandi Gobindgarh
Mullanpur Road,
Village Mullanpur Kalan
P.O. Sangatpura Sodhian
Sirhind.-140405
PAN No. AACFE5797L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.274/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
D.C.I.T.,Circle Vs M/s Eden Steel Alloys
Mandi Gobindgarh Near Powergrid,Ambey Majra
Mullanpur Road,
Village Mullanpur Kalan
P.O. Sangatpura Sodhian
Sirhind.-140405
PAN No. AACFE5797L
Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Kushal Chopra
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 281/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
M/s Northern India Vs. ITO-Ward-2
Steel Rolling,Mills Mandi Gobindgarh
Guru Ki Nagri
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFN1838L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.248/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
I.T.O.-Ward-2 Vs M/s M/s Northern India
Mandi Gobindgarh Steel Rolling, Mills
Guru Ki Nagri
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFN1838L
Appellant) (Respondent)
13
Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Datta
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 393/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Baba Balaknath Alloys Vs. ITO-Ward-1
C/o Nidhish Iron & Steel Co. Mandi Gobindgarh
Harchand Mill Road
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAIFB 8905H
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.453/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
I.T.O.-Ward-2 Vs Baba Balaknath Alloys,
Mandi Gobindgarh C/o Nidhish Iron & Steel Co.
Harchand Mill Road
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAIFB 8905H
Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Datta
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 288/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Friends Industries Vs. ACIT,Circle
Amloh Road. Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAAFF 1788L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Datta
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No.414/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
M/s Ganesh Steel Industries Vs I.T.O.-Ward-2
G.T.Raod, Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFG 3528N
Appellant) (Respondent)
14
Assessee By : Sh. K.P.Bajaj,Adv
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 450/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Jain Steel Industries Vs. DCIT-Circle
G.T.Road Khanna Side Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAGFJ8726N
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.495/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
DCIT-Circle Vs M/s Jain Steel Industries,
Mandi Gobindgarh G.T.Road Khanna Side.
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAGFJ 8726N
Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saldi
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 418/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Arihant Steel Rolling Mills Vs. DCIT-Circle
C/o Shri Manoj Kumar, Mandi Gobindgarh
House No.132,Sector -4 D
Shashtri Nagar,
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AACFA0430E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.452/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
I.T.O.-Ward-2 Vs M/s Arihant Steel Rolling Mills,
Mandi Gobindgarh C/o Shri Manoj Kumar
House No.132,Sector -4 D,
Shashtri Nagar,
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AACFA0430E
Appellant) (Respondent)
15
Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 627/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Jorawar Engineering Vs. JCIT-Range
& Foundry Forge Pvt.Ltd, Mandi Gobindgarh
Sirhind Side
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABCJ4261A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.660/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
I.T.O.-Ward-1 Vs M/s Jorawar Engineering &
Mandi Gobindgarh . Foundry Forge Pvt.Ltd
Sirhind Side
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABCJ4261A
Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Deepak Aggarwal,Adv
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 30/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Punjab Steel Forging & Vs. JCIT-Range
Agro Industries, Mandi Gobindgarh
Khanna Side
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFP4154H
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.40/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
ACIT-Circle Vs M/s Punjab Steel Forging &Agro
Mandi Gobindgarh. Industries,Khanna Side
Mandi Gobindgarh.
PAN No. AABFP 4154HA
Appellant) (Respondent)
16
ITA No 31/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Inder Singh & Sons Vs. I.T.O.-Ward-1
Amloh Road Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAAFI 8854N
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.927/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
I.T.O.Ward-1 Vs M/s Inder Singh & sons
Mandi Gobindgarh Amloh Road
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAAFI 8854N
Appellant) (Respondent
ITA No 575/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Karam Steel Corporation, Vs. JCIT-Range
Nasrali Road Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFK2488F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.585/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
ACIT-Circle Vs M/s Karam Steel Corporation
Mandi Gobindgarh Nasrali Road
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFK2488F
ITA No 419/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Karam Steel Corporation, Vs. ACIT-Circle
Nasrali Road Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFK2488F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.615/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
DCIT-Circle Vs M/s Karam Steel Corporation
Mandi Gobindgarh Nasrali Road
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFK2488F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
17
Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehal & Kushal Chopra
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 532/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Bhodey Steel Rolling Mills, Vs. ITO, Ward-1
Near P.S.E.B., G.T.Road Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFB1257H
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.594/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
ITO, Ward-2 Vs M/s Bhodey Steel Rolling Mills
Mandi Gobindgarh Near P.S.E.B., G.T.Road
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFB1257H
Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Kanika Gupta
Respondent By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No.511/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
M/s Unipearl Alloys Vs ITO Ward-2
Village Tooran, Mandi Gobindgarh
Amloh Road
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFU 3696 F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Sh. Kushal Chopra
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No.534/Chd/2015
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Surya Steel Industries Vs DCIT Circle
Chatarpura Road, Mandi Gobindgarh
Village Ambey Majra
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAZFS 3717 K
(Appellant) (Respondent)
18
Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Kanika Gupta
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 299/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/s Pushpanjali Strips Mills, Vs. JCIT Range
Mullanpur Kalan Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAJFP 0868 Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No.272/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
ITO, Ward-1 Vs M/s Pushpanjali Strips Mills,
Mandi Gobindgarh Mullanpur Kalan
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAJFP 0868 Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Atul Goyal, CA
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 198/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2012-13
M/s King Steel Rolling Mills, Vs. ITO Ward-2
G.T. Road, Sirhind Side Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAAFK 8872 G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Sh. Kushal Chopra
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 206/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Arun Steels, Vs. ITO Ward-1
G.T. Road, Sirhind Side Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AADFA 9302 Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
19
Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Kanika Gupta
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 447/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
ITO Ward-1, Vs. M/S R.K. Steels & Alloys
Mandi Gobindgarh Amloh Road,
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFR 2937 G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
CO No.19/Chd/2016
(in ITA No 447/Chd/2016)
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/S R.K. Steels & Alloys Vs ITO Ward-1,
Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFR 2937 G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Sh. Kushal Chopra
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 113/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2010-11
M/S Modi Wire Products Vs JCIT Range,
Railway Godown Road Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFM 3477 A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Sh. Kushal Chopra
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 305/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/S Modi Wire Products Vs ACIT Circle,
Railway Godown Road Mandi Gobindgarh
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AABFM 3477 A
(Appellant) (Respondent)
20
Assessee By : Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, CA
Department By : Sh. Ravi Sarangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarshan,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
ITA No 328/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
M/s Shree Salasar Steel Structurals, Vs. JCIT Range
P. Ltd. Mandi Gobindgarh
Village Ambey Majra,
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAKCS 3670 D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No 334/Chd/2016
Assessment Year:2011-12
DCIT Ci rcle Vs M/s Shree Salasar Mandi
Gobindgarh Steel Structurals,P. Ltd.
Village Ambey Majra,
Mandi Gobindgarh
PAN No. AAKCS 3670
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh . Rajiv D atta, CA
Department By : Sh. Ravi S arangal,CIT,DR,
Sh. Arvind Sudarsh an,JCIT
Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goyal,DCIT
Date of hearing : 09/02/2017
Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017
O R D E R
PER BENCH This order shall dispose off all the above cross appeals which are involving the identical issue.
2. We have heard ld. Representatives of all the assessees, ld. CIT-DR Shri Ravi Sarangal. Shri Pradeep 21 Kumar Goyal, DCIT and Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT are also present in the Court to assist the Bench.
3. The ld. Representatives of both the parties mainly argued in the cross appeals of assessee M/s Modi Oil & General Mills. Therefore, for the purpose of disposal of all the cross appeals, the facts are taken and considered from the cross appeals of M/s Modi Oil & General Mills.
ITA 149/2016 : (Departmntal Appeal) ITA 112/2016 : (Assessee's Appeal) Assessment Year : 2010-11
4. Both the cross appeals are directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) Patiala dated 30.12.2015 for assessment year 2010-11. The assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs. 1,60,23,090/- and the same was processed.
5. The brief facts are that the appellant company is iron and steel rolling mill. The A.O. has observed that in this case, electricity consumed is directly related to production of finished goods. The process of production of finished goods involves heating of raw material i.e. ingots, billets, slabs etc. and, thereafter, passing the same through various rollers for getting desired finished goods i.e. rounds, squares and bars. Thinner sections entail higher consumption of electricity as these have to 22 pass through a higher number of rollers. In order to co- relate the consumption of electricity vis-a-vis the production shown, the A.O. gathered information regarding consumption of electricity from the Electricity Board. The A.O. analyzed the data and reproduced the same in different annexures duly enclosed with the assessment order. Annexure-A shows the consumption of electricity pmt of finished goods on daily basis for the entire year. It was observed that the electricity consumption pmt. of finished goods varies widely while the average for the entire year is 45.93 units. The Annexure-B shows the days on which electricity consumed is low but the production of finished goods is very high. Annexure-C shows the days on which the consumption of electricity units is very high whereas the production of finished goods is very low. Further, there are certain days when there is high consumption of electricity but no production of finished goods. The details are reproduced in the assessment order. Annexure-D shows the days on which there is low consumption of electricity but no production of finished goods.
5(i) When confronted on this issue, the appellant submitted that the consumption of electricity depends on various factors. The appellant is manufacturing different types of products namely M.S. Rounds and bars etc. from steel ingots, and billets etc. and that too 23 of different sizes. Further the consumption of electricity depends on the quality of raw material and furnace oil, supply of electricity, machinery breakdown, labour problems, over heating etc. Further there was mismatch in period of recording of finished products and recording of consumption of electricity. Detailed submission of the appellant is reproduced in the assessment order.
5(ii) The A.O., however, did not accept the submission of the appellant. The A.O. concluded that there was no evidence on record relating to the types, sizes and quality of finished goods produced on daily basis. The A.O. further noted that even on monthly basis there is a large variation in the consumption of electricity units pmt. of finished goods as reproduced in the assessment year. The A.O., thereafter, rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the IT Act'61. The A.O. relied on the case of Melton India vs. Commissioner of Trade of Tax (UP) Appeal No. (Civil) 373 of 2007 (SC), Shree Ganpati Embroidery Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 16 DTR (P & H) and Kanchwala Gems vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC). The A.O., thereafter, adopted the quantum of electricity consumed pmt. on the basis of minimum value of average electricity consumed pmt. for a period of 30 days assuming that within a period of 30 days various types and sizes of finished goods would have been 24 produced. The lowest value, from this chart is 37.53 units pmt. pertaining to the period from 25.01.2010 to 15.03.2010. On this basis, the A.O. estimated the unaccounted production. The A.O. computed the quantum of actual finished goods produced and, thereafter, ascertained the unaccounted production for each month after deducting the finished goods produced during the months as shown in the books of accounts. Thereafter, on the basis of average sales rate total unaccounted production was estimated in monetary terms and then adopting the gross profit rate shown by the appellant, the unaccounted profit out of the unaccounted production was worked out. Secondly, the peak unaccounted production for the relevant month was determined and by multiplying with the average sales rate of finished goods, the unaccounted investment was worked out.
5(iii) The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order dated 15.02.2013 and made the addition of Rs. 1,90,01,568/- and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,50,24,654/-. The additions were made on account of unaccounted investment in unaccounted production and unaccounted profit out of the unaccounted production.
6. The additions were challenged before ld. CIT(Appeals) and assessee filed detailed written 25 submissions and reiterated the submissions made before Assessing Officer. It was contended that different type of products of varying sizes were being manufactured. The assessee also relied on report of National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology according to which the consumption of electricity depends on various factors. No defects have been pointed out in the books of account. All the purchases, sales and expenses are duly vouched. The unit is under Central Excise and all records are maintained. Therefore, books of account have been wrongly rejected by the Assessing Officer and additions are wholly unjustified. The ld. CIT(Appeals) followed the order of his predecessor in the case of M/s Karam Steel Corporation dated 30.03.2015 and reproduced the same in the impugned order in which the estimation of consumption of electric per metric ton of production was upheld and the profit estimated by the Assessing Officer on the unaccounted production was confirmed. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, accepted the argument of the assessee regarding circulation of the stock as only part of the stock will keep on circulating in the chain of production and subsequent sales. The ld. CIT(Appeals), ultimately sustained the addition of Rs. 55,78,821/- on account of unaccounted investment subject to verification by the Assessing Officer and appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 26
7. It may be noted here that the assessee in this appeal has challenged the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3)/144 of Income Tax Act alongwith upholding of the addition of Rs. 55,78,521/- on account of unaccounted investment against addition of Rs. 1,29,13,563/-. In the ground of appeal also, assessee has stated that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in not giving any finding against addition of Rs. 60,88,005/- made by Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted profit out of unaccounted production. The Revenue Department in their appeal has challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,90,01,568/- to the extent of Rs. 1,16,66,526/-.
8. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala has already subsequent to passing of the orders under section 143(3) of the Act constituted a Committee to verify normal variation in consumption of electricity for manufacturing each metric ton of finished goods and the Committee has given a report on 25.05.2016, therefore, ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax issued some internal guidelines regarding acceptability of variation upto 15% and no additions have been made on similar issue in subsequent years by the Assessing Officer in some cases of assessee on similar issues in favour of the assessee. 27 8(i) The ld. DR sought time to verify the stand of the Department with regard to cases decided subsequently by the Department on the basis of the internal guidelines issued after constituting a Committee. On the date of hearing, ld. DR filed copies of the Minutes of the Committee and report of Addl. CIT, Range - Mandi Gobindgarh dated 25.05.2016 and letter addressed to CIT-DR by the office of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala dated 30.01.2017 for explaining the stand of the Department. The aforesaid letter dated 30.01.2007 is reproduced as under :
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYKAR BHAWAN. PATIALA Ph:0175-2214883/Fax: 0175-2219416 F.No.Pr. CIT/PTA/Tech/Consp. Of Elect/90/16-17 Dated : 30.01.2017 To The Commissioner of Income Tax (D.R.-1), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Room No. 402, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Himalaya Marg, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh-160017.
Sir, Sub: Appeals before the ITAT in respect of cases of consumption of Electricity viz-z-viz suppression/ unaccounted production of Mandi Gobindgarh- Regarding -
********** Kindly refer to your office letter No. 1064 dated 24.01.2017 on the subject cited above.
2. As desired, I have been directed to intimate that the parawise comments on the arguments of the assessees, whose cases are pending before the ITAT, Chandigarh, are being sent as under:- 28
i) It is contended that In this regard, it is submitted that with Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, regard to pendency of appeals before the Patiala has already subsequent to Hon'ble ITAT pertaining to Assessment passing of Orders u/s 143(3) Years 2010-11 to 2012-13, on the issue of issued some internal guidelines electricity, the department has estimated regarding acceptability of the unaccounted production after rejecting variation upto 15% and no the books of accounts because there was addition have been made on wide variation in the consumption of similar issue in subsequent years electricity units per metric ton production by the AO in the same cases of of finished goods. Thereafter, for assessee on similar issues in estimation u/s 144, in case of rolling mills, favour of assessee. the average of 30 days and in case of induction furnaces 10 days average involving the least consumption of electricity units for production of one metric ton was taken to work out the alleged unaccounted production on which gross profit was applied to determine the unaccounted income. Similarly, by adopting number of holding days, unexplained investment in the alleged unaccounted production was estimated.
Thereafter, taking into consideration the grievances amongst the tax payers, a committee was constituted by the Pr.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. The said committee was required to examine the actual business state of affairs of the assessees engaged in production i.e. steel rolling mills and furnaces. The committee by visiting various units found that variation in consumption of electric units of different sizes of finished goods produced are there.
Therefore, the committee only in those cases where there was wide variation considered their cases for the purposes of rejection of books of accounts. Further, on the basis of finding given by visiting various units, it was decided that upto 15% variation in the consumption of electricity units per MT of finished goods produced are justifiable and reasonable having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case in the Iron & Steel Industry because zero variation cannot be visualized or achieved by any level of technology given the different nature of raw material, machinery and finished goods. However, in the earlier years only the cycle involving minimum number of consumption of electricity unit was considered for estimation of unaccounted production/income which was culled from assessees books of account to extrapolate the alleged 29 unaccounted production which led to unreasonable/unjustified additions not based on the actual facts and circumstances of the assessees because while extrapolating unaccounted production, the average industrial norm of number of electricity units consumed per MT of finished goods was not taken into consideration. There are number of cases where unaccounted production was extrapolated even by taking 15 to 20 units of electricity for production of per MT finished goods, which is impossible. In order to make the estimation u/s 144 more fair and reasonable, it was decided to adopt average of minimum and maximum number of units consumed per cycle of 30 days/10 days on the basis of book's of account maintained by each assesses. The idea was to consider both the extremes to arrive at fair and judicious estimation of income. However, the department has kept the main issue alive i.e. rejection of books of accounts by modifying the basis of estimation of unaccounted production on the basis of minimum and maximum value of average electricity consumed per MT for a continuous period of 30 days in the case of Rolling Mills and 10 days in the case of furnaces, alongwith unexplained investment in unaccounted production. It is worthwhile to mention here that every year is an independent assessment year. However; considering the facts & circumstances of each case, the appeals may be decided on merits.
ii) It is also contended that in The decision of the Ld. CIT(A), Patiala in some cases of subsequent estimating total undisclosed investment in assessment years of these respect of that unaccounted production at assessees, the Assessing Officers half of the peak unaccounted production have made additions after computed on monthly basis i.e. 15 days was considering favorably one third not accepted by the department as the AOs of such variation instead of half have adopted the quantum of electricity percent as allowed by the CIT(Appeals), Patiala in cases consumed per MT on the basis of minimum under appeal. value of average electricity consumed per MT for a continuous period of 30 days assuming that within a period of 30 various types and sizes of finished goods would have been produced. The department is already in appeal before the ITAT on the decision of the CIT(Appeals). Further, the AOs examined the issues having regard to the facts & circumstances of each case as 30 against applying any uniform criteria. All the issues involved therein were examined by the respective AOs on case to case basis.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
( Baldev Singh ) Income Tax Officer Hq.)(Tech.),Patiala"
8(ii). The copy of the aforesaid letter is provided to counsels for various assessees appearing at the time of hearing of the cross-appeals. Ld. Counsels for assessees have argued that since the Department has considered the grievances by constituting a Committee by ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala and Committee has given certain guidelines as to how the assessment shall have to be framed and in subsequent years, on the basis of the same guidelines, the Assessing Officer did not make additions against the assessee, therefore, matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer to re-decide all the issues involved in cross-appeals in accordance with law and in accordance with guidelines issued by the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala as above.
9. The ld. DR also suggested that in view of the above stand of the Department and internal guidelines issued by ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, matter 31 may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-consideration of the issues in accordance with law. As noted above, two of the Assessing Officers of the Revenue Department of the same Range were also present during the course of hearing and they have also similarly suggested that matter may be remanded to the files of the Assessing Officer in all the cases for re- deciding the issues in accordance with the internal guidelines issued by ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala as well as in accordance with law.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the internal guidelines issued by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala by forming a Committee to consider the grievance of the tax payers, it is clear that Revenue Department has taken some reasonable basis to compute the income of the assessee on the basis of the power consumption. It is admitted fact that in subsequent years, some favourable view have been taken in favour of the assessees by following the same guidelines. It may be noted here that the assessee in this appeal has challenged the rejection of the books of account under section 145(3)/144 of Income Tax Act alongwith upholding of the addition of Rs. 55,78,521/- on account of unaccounted investment against addition of Rs. 1,29,13,563/-. In the ground of appeal also, assessee has stated that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in not giving any finding against addition of 32 Rs. 60,88,005/- made by Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted profit out of unaccounted production. The Revenue Department in their appeal has challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,90,01,568/- to the extent of Rs. 1,16,66,526/-. Since all the respective grounds of appeal in cross appeals are connected with estimation of the unaccounted production based upon power consumption by estimating unaccounted investment and unaccounted profit out of unaccounted production and on the same, Revenue Department has constituted the Committee to consider the grievances of the assessees/tax payers and ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax issued the above guidelines by modifying the basis of estimation of unaccounted production and same guidelines have been adopted in subsequent years by the respective Assessing Officers, therefore, in our considered view, entire matter requires re-consideration at the level of the Assessing Officer. In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders of authorities below and restore the entire issue to the file of Assessing Officer i.e. rejection of the books of account under section 145(3)/144, unaccounted production of finished goods, unaccounted profit and unaccounted investment out of unaccounted production with reference to consumption of electricity units per metric ton production of finished goods with direction to re-decide the entire issue in accordance with law in the light of the internal guidelines issued by the ld. Pr. 33 Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. The Assessing Officer shall give reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assessee shall be at liberty to raise any contention before Assessing Officer for completion of the assessment in accordance with law.
11. In the result, both the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Remaining Cross Appeals ( As referred to above)
12. In the remaining cross appeals, the issues are same as have been considered in the cross appeals of M/s Modi Oil & General Mills (supra). In some of the appeals of the assessee, some other small grounds have also been raised which have not been pressed by ld. counsels for the assessees. Therefore, following the reasons for decision in the case of M/s Modi Oil &General Mills (supra), we set aside the orders of authorities below and restore the entire issue to the file of Assessing Officer i.e. rejection of the books of account under section 145(3)/144, unaccounted production of finished goods, unaccounted profit and unaccounted investment out of unaccounted production with reference to consumption of electricity units per metric ton production of finished goods with direction to re-decide the entire issue in accordance with law in the light of the internal guidelines issued by the ld. Pr. 34 Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. The Assessing Officer shall give reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessees and assessees shall be at liberty to raise any contention before Assessing Officer for completion of the assessment in accordance with law.
13. In the result, all the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
14. In the result, all appeals of the assessees and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms above.
Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 14th February,2017.
'Poonam'
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. The CIT,DR
Assistant Registrar,
ITAT/CHD