Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd., E

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR 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 10/08/2021 Order Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Income TaxDepartment. The appeal has been sought to be filed by the appellantagainst the order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in ITANo.191/JODH/2019 and C.O. No.17/JODH/2019. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, itappears that the Department has gone in appeal before theTribunal and the assessee has filed cross objection in that appealand the same came to be disposed of by the Tribunal by acommon order dated 01.02.2021. Learned counsel for the Revenue drew our attention to para-14 of impugned order and essentially contended that there hasbeen suppression of production or sales outside the books ofaccounts. The Tribunal has come to the finding that the variation in the production as per DIP file and stock register has beenascribed to the reason that in the DIP register, measurement ofthe production was made by putting scale in the oil tank every dayand in rounded units for internal purpose. The small difference of1 cm in taking the DIP file may result in minor variation. It was afinding of fact that the total variation was less than 0.5 due toestimation. Apart from the above, the Tribunal has come to hold takinginto consideration the entire facts that the addition by the AO hasbeen made on the basis of electricity consumption on crushing ofper quintal Mustrad seeds in the month of August 2014, where theconsumption was lowest. Reliance was placed on the decision ofthis Court in CIT Vs. Sulabh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (165 Taxman258) in which this Court supported the case of the assessee andcame to the findings that the AO has erred by taking the amountpaid by the assessee for electricity consumption as base assumedthe actual production to be more than what is disclosed and madethe addition. We are in complete agreement with the findings arrived atthe Tribunal on question of facts. We do not find any justiciableground to entertain the present appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ Ashutosh-10