Can AO direct to adopt the generation of Scrap after reducing the amount on which no scrap is generated?

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.4980/Del/2016
Assessment Year: 2012-13

Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd.,
25-B, Gher Khattii,
Muzafarnagar.
PAN: AACCT5815B
(Appellant) 

Vs 

ACIT,
Circle-1,
Muzaffarnagar.
(Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate
Revenue by : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 25.03.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 18.06.2021

ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th June,2016 of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar, relating to the assessment year 2012-13.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:-

“1. That Learned CIT(A) is wrong and unjustified in confirming the addition of Rs. 10342904/- in 115JB holding that the profit and loss account has not been prepared in accordance with part II & part III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, and in not adjudicating the decisions of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The addition is on account of Administrative charges on transfer of Molasses from Sugar Mill to Distillery which provisions have been declared as invalid as per order of  Hon’ble Allahabad High Court dated 17/3/2011 and 20/5/11 and when the provisions have been declared as invalid there was no liability of making provisions year after year and provision in the year under consideration was made for all the year as per direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court

2. That the learned CIT(A) is wrong and unjustified in not adjudicating on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apolo Tyres Ltd vs.CIT(2002) 255 ITR 223 wherein it has been held that AO must accept authenticity of amount certified by the Statutory Auditor.

3. That Learned CIT(A) is wrong and unjustified in directing to follow the decision of his predecessor in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 and in directing to adopt the generation of Scrap @10% after reducing the amount on which no scrap is generated.

4. That the Assessment order and appellate order are against the law and facts of the case.”

3. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press the ground of appeal No.3 for which the ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly ground of appeal No.3 is dismissed as ‘not pressed.’ Ground of appeal No.4 being general in nature, is dismissed.

4. So far as grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 are concerned, the facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and derives income from manufacturing of sugar, alcohol and power. It filed its return of income on 25th September, 2012 declaring gross total income at Rs.2,07,36,601/-. 

To know more in details find the attachment file