Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dhanesh Cotton Ginning Dal & Oil Mills vs Ito on 17 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)86TTJ(NULL)425
ORDER
B.L. Khatri, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Dy, Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, for the assessment year 1993-94.
2. The ground No. 1 relates to the addition of Rs. 5,262 on account of low yield of rice bran.
3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials available on records. In this case, the learned assessing officer had accepted the yield of rice the main product shown at 65.4 per cent to be reasonable but took the yield of the rice bran recovered at 8.18 per cent to be lower than 8.45 per cent shown in the assessment year 1991-92, though in the assessment year 1992-93, the same was recovered at 8.16 per cent. The assessing officer should have pointed out defects in maintenance of accounts in the absence of which no addition can be made for low yield. Besides, the assessing officer should have compared the results of current year with immediate past year i.e., assessment year 1992-93. We are also of the opinion that the appellant cannot be expected to declare the results with arithmetical accuracy in comparison to the past years as there is slight decrease in comparison to past year. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,266 sustained by the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) for low yield of rice bran is hereby deleted.
4. The ground No. 2 pertains to the addition of Rs. 33,040 on account of rice husk.
5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The learned assessing officer had referred to the decision Income Tax Officer v. R.K. Rice & General Mills (1990) 38 7TJ (Chd) 387: 451 Taxation 145 wherein, it was held that 20 per cent of the total paddy should be treated as husk. Even in other cases of Hanumangarh town, they are showing husk at the above percentage and its value was prevailing at Rs. 16 per quintal.
6. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision in Income Tax Officer v. Mohan Lal Thaper & Bros. (1993) 47 TTJ (Chd) 452 before the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was held that no such addition on account of husk could be made where no sale was found to have taken place. The learned counsel for the assessee has also relied on the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of the appellant for the assessment year 1992-93 wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after having discussed the facts of the case deleted the addition on the ground that it was using the husk in its own factory and that part of it is thrown away as being of no use due to the inability to sell it.
7. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel and order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1992-93, we hereby delete the addition of Rs. 33,040 sustained by the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals).
8. The ground No. 3 relates to the disallowance of Rs. 5,000 out of factory expenses and repairs account.
9. The learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) has sustained the disallowance of Rs. 5,000 pertaining to factory and repairs expenses out of 37,036 and Rs. 41,092, respectively, on the ground that the assessing officer did not find any expenses fully vouched.
10. We have perused the order of the assessing officer and find that there were no instances of unvouched items of expenditure. Therefore, in the absence of any specific instances quoted by the assessing officer, the disallowance of Rs. 5,000 sustained by the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby deleted.
11. The last ground pertains to the disallowance of scooter expenses and depreciation by 1/5th of the claim. The assessing officer had disallowed 1/5th of these expenses and depreciation on account of personal use of scooter by the partners.
12. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the materials available on record. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Dy. 1AW Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, it is upheld.
13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.