hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 994 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... App The Commissioner of Income Tax ... App The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus Santogen Textile Mills Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.Anil Mishra i/by P.K.P. Legal Solutions for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The revenue has preferred the appeal on the following questions : "(a) The question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the tribunal erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs.19,15,108/- on account of sale of excess production resulting from oil gain during the process of manufacture of dyed texturised yarn? (b) The question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the tribunal erred in directing the A..O. to verify of disallowance u/s. 43B in respect of employee’s contribution to ESIC & PF of Rs.1,04,690/- and to allow payments which have been made with in the grace period?" . In so far as question (a) is concerned, the learned tribunal had passed an order dated 22.10.2007 relying on the order of another Bench of the tribunal in the assessee’s own case for block period of 1.4.1988 to 23.6.1998. In respect of that order revenue was in appeal before us in I.T.X.A.(L) No.1418 of 2005. We upheld the finding of the tribunal therein considering that it was for the block assessment, as in the case of block assessments what has tobe considered is the incriminating material that has come on record during the course of search. We are here concerned with the regular assessment. The C.I.T. (Appeal) interfered with the order of the A.O. and brought down the oil gain from 2% to 1%. If the tribunal wanted to interfere with the said findings it ought to have recorded reasoning for so doing. In the instant case, apart from relying on the block assessment no other reasons are given. In our opinion, finding therefore, based upon the block assessment period cannot be sustained. The question remanded back to the tribunal for de novo consideration according to law. . In so far as question (b) is concerned,the same is covered by the judgment of this court reported in (2008) 298 ITR 149 in Commissioner of IncomeTax Verus Godaveri (Mannar) Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. In the light of that, question (b) answered in favour of the revenue and against Assessee. . Appeal disposed of accordingly. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)