Smt. Urmila Gupta (Prop.) Lovey Ankit ... vs Department Of Income Tax

I.T.O., Hardoi, Vs. Smt. Urmila Gupta, Hardoi. Nayagaon Mubarakpur, Hardoi. PAN:AKHPG1519K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri C. P. Singh, D.R. Respondent by None Date of hearing 18/12/2014 Date of pronouncement 16/01/2015 ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.

This is revenue's appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A), Bareilly dated 02/06/2014 for assessment year 2011-12.

2. The grounds raised by the revenue are as under:

1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bareilly has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of Unexplained investment for purchase of extra paddy amounting to Rs. 13,76,039/-.

2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bareilly has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition rightly made by the Assessing Officer on account of extra profit on sale of Rice at Rs. 11,04,270/-.

3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bareilly has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition rightly made by the Assessing Officer on account of extra profit on sale of Rice Bran at Rs. 69,271/-.

4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bareilly has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition rightly made by the Assessing Officer on account of extra profit on sale of Husk at Rs. 13,233/-.

5. That the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be cancelled and the order of the Assessing Officer may be restored.

6. Any other ground may be taken at the time of hearing of appeal.

3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice and hence, we proceed to decide this appeal ex parte qua the assessee. Learned DR of the revenue supported the assessment order.

2 4. We have considered the submissions of learned DR of the revenue and the orders of the authorities below. We find that on page no. 2 of the assessment order, the A.O. has reproduced a month wise chart of electricity consumption in units, hulling of paddy in quintals and rate of consumption of electricity per quintal n units. After this chart, the A.O. noted that the rate is 3.07 in November but 9.25 in December. In March, 2011 the rate is 0.57units per quintal. The A.O. also noted that there is no production during April 2010 to July 2010 but electricity consumption is shown at 20475, 12894, 12120 and 9648 units in these four months. The A.O. has also noted the comparative rate of electricity consumption in November 2010 to March 2011 at 1.04 units per quintal. He has also noted plant capacity and sanctioned load etc. and confronted the same to the assessee. The reply was not satisfactory. All the additions made by the A.O. are based on this excessive consumption of electricity claimed by the assessee. There is no concrete finding of learned CIT (A) on this aspect. He has made a sweeping comment on page 7 of his order that increase in consumption of electricity may be due to various technical reasons without mentioning even a single such reason. Therefore, we feel that the order of learned CIT (A is not sustainable. The additions made by the A.O. are on reasonable basis because there is abnormal consumption of electricity and the same could not be explained by the assessee. We, therefore, reverse the order of learned CIT (A) on all issues and restore that of the A.O.

5. In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)

Sd/. Sd/.

(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated:16/01/2015. *C.L.Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar