DY. CIT Vs. BRAHMAPUTRA STEELS (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the revenue in respect of the assessment year 1990 -91 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing iron ingots from scrap. Detailed records are maintained for purchase of raw material and production of finished goods as required under Central Excise Act. The daily stock registers in respect of purchase of raw materials and production of finished goods are also verified regularly by the Central excise authorities as required under the relevant statutes. The assessee had also furnished weekly, fortnightly and quarterly returns before the Central excise authorities in respect of raw materials, production, etc. In the assessment year 1989 -90, purchases made from 23 parties were not accepted by the assessing officer, on the ground that these were not produced before the assessing officer for verification. The additions made were deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was also upheld by the Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati. In the current year also an addition of Rs. 1,77,36,885 has been made by the assessing officer disallowing the purchases from 17 parties out of the 23 parties involved in the last year. The addition by the assessing officer has been made on the basis of his findings and decisions in the assessment year 1989 -90. The sales as disclosed by the assessee has been accepted and no addition has been made in this respect. In addition to the above, further addition were made in respect of contribution towards shares capital, Objection has also been raised by the revenue for relief allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of calculation of tax under section 115J and calculation of depreciation.

(3.) MR . Sampat Kr. Jain, the learned Authorised Representative, vehemently argued against the addition made. He submitted that in accordance with the letter, dated 25 -2 -1992, to the assessing officer the following points were raised before the assessing officer :