JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and as such with respect to the same assessee but with respect to different assessment orders, all these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "ITAT") in ITA Nos. 2414/Ahd/2011 to 2418/Ahd/2011 for A.Y. 1990-91 to A.Y. 1994-95, by which the learned ITAT has dismissed the said appeals preferred by the common assessee and has confirmed the addition of Rs. 27,74,890/- for A.Y. 1990-91, Rs. 60,05,723/- for A.Y. 1991-92, Rs. 65,10,524/- for A.Y. 1992-93, Rs. 48,70,916/- for A.Y. 1993-94 and Rs. 46,01,866/- for A.Y. 1994-95 in respect of the so called accounted local sales of gold, made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the following proposed questions of law. "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the artisans did not use the same quantity of gold, which the appellant had sent to them for manufacturing of gold ornaments, and therefore, the difference was to be added as unaccounted local sales within the country? (2) Whether the Tribunal erred in not seriously considering the new evidence and the result thereof which new evidence, the appellant produced in the present matter, which was not there in Asst. Year 1989-99? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is perverse? (4) Whether the order of the Tribunal is a speaking order?" 3. For the sake of convenience the facts in Tax Appeal No. 855/2016 arising out of ITA No. 2414/Ahd/2011 for A.Y. 1990-91 are narrated and considered and the Tax Appeal No. 855/2016 be treated as a lead matter. 3.1 That the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export of gold ornaments. That according to the assessee, the assessee exports gold ornaments to various companies and therefore, was entitled to exemption of income of export under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "IT Act"). According to the assessee it was upto the A.Y. 1989-90, the modus operandi of the same viz. That according to the assessee, the assessee exports gold ornaments to various companies and therefore, was entitled to exemption of income of export under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "IT Act"). According to the assessee it was upto the A.Y. 1989-90, the modus operandi of the same viz. it will send the raw gold to the artisans in various cities and towns of the country and all these artisans will be mixing the alloy of the quantity prescribed by the assessee and intimated to each artisan. That the total accounting of the gold outward and the gold ornaments inward have been maintained. Upto A.Y. 1988-89, the books of accounts came to be accepted but in A.Y. 1989-90, for the first time the then Officer raised a question and held that against the consumption of gold weighing 876610.488 gm, the actual utilization in ornaments was 864420.299 gm and the difference of 12190.189 gm was unaccounted local sales. According to the assessee the consumption of gold by artisans was arrived at on the basis of the customs procedure resulting into rejection of all the contemporaneous evidence in the books of accounts. The same resulted into an addition of Rs. 38,46,004/- by way of unaccounted income and net addition to income of Rs. 4,00,230/-. That the assessee went in appeal to CIT(A), who reduced the unaccounted sales of Rs. 20,31,480/- from Rs. 38,46,004/- and allowed Diwali Bonus of Rs. 14,047/-. The assessee preferred appeal to the learned ITAT. The learned ITAT dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee preferred appeal to this Court. This Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee and held that the finding given by the learned ITAT do not suffer from any perversity. 3.2 It is the case on behalf of the assessee that in the meantime the appeal for A.Y. 2000-01, in which the assessee produced very important additional evidences (which according to the assessee was not there before the learned Tribunal in the appeal for A.Y. 1989-90) came up for hearing before the learned ITAT and the learned ITAT sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer. That the Assessing Officer again passed an assessment order making the same addition. That the Assessing Officer again passed an assessment order making the same addition. The matter went to the learned ITAT, not only for A.Y. 2000-01 but also for A.Y. 2002-03 and 2003-04 in respective appeals holding that the evidence, which the assessee had purchased in these years has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. 3.3 That thereafter the Assessing Officer framed the assessment for A.Y. 1990-91 to 1994-95 and made the addition as under:- 0 Returned Income (Rs.) Assessed Income (Rs.) Export Turnover (Rs.) Disputed Tax (Rs.) 1990-91 18,340 2,47,360 14.72 Crores 48,578 1991-92 16,370 4,83,450 27.89 Crores 87,382 1992-93 1,95,550 10,13,360 29.66 Crores 1,65,959 1993-94 41,762 4,91,630 31.48 Crores 2,03,545 1994-95 30,070 4,13,990 30.42 Crores 1,73,438 3.4 That feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective assessment orders for A.Y. 1990-91 to 1994-95, the assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) passed a composite order for A.Y. 1990-91 to 1994-95 and dismissed the appeals following the order of A.Y. 1989-90 holding that the new evidence does not prove anything in light of the discussion in the ITAT's order of A.Y. 1989-90. 3.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common order passed by the learned CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeals before the learned ITAT being ITA Nos. 2414/Ahd/2011 to 2418/Ahd/2011. That by common impugned judgment and order the learned ITAT has dismissed the said appeals preferred by the assessee and has confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer which has given rise to the present Tax Appeals. 4. Shri J.P. Shah, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 5. Shri J.P. Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal has materially erred in dismissing the appeals and confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 5.1 It is further submitted by Shri Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that the learned ITAT has materially erred relying upon the order passed for A.Y. 1989-90. It is vehemently submitted that the learned ITAT has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that for the year under consideration the assessee produced the additional evidences, which were not there at the time when the assessment for A.Y. 1089-90 was framed. It is vehemently submitted that the learned ITAT has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that for the year under consideration the assessee produced the additional evidences, which were not there at the time when the assessment for A.Y. 1089-90 was framed. It is submitted that therefore the learned ITAT has materially erred in following the decision of this Court for A.Y. 1989-90. 5.2 It is further submitted by Shri Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that the learned ITAT has materially erred in not considering and/or appreciating the evidence produced which were not there in A.Y. 1989-90. It is submitted that without considering the new evidence in detail the learned ITAT has observed that none of the new evidences are contemporaneous or evidences to establish the actual consumption of gold at higher purity level. It is submitted that therefore finding recorded by the learned ITAT is perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record. 5.3 It is further submitted by Shri Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that even while remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for the A.Y. 2000-01, the learned ITAT considered the new evidences as contemporaneous and similar evidences for A.Y. 1990-91 to 1994-95 are held to be not contemporaneous by the learned ITAT by passing the impugned common judgment and order. It is submitted that therefore as such the learned ITAT ought to have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer and to pass a fresh order on considering the new evidences. It is submitted that the learned ITAT has erred in making a short swift of the matter by pointing out that all these new evidences were not contemporaneous or evidences to establish actual consumption of gold at higher purity level. It is further submitted by Shri Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that by observing that new evidences are not contemporaneous or evidences to establish actual consumption of gold at higher purity level, virtually the learned ITAT has sat in the judgment over the earlier order of the learned ITAT in A.Y. 2000-01, which sent the matter for consideration of the additional evidence. Shri Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has taken us to the evidences produced, from the paper book filed before the learned ITAT and relying upon the said evidences it is submitted that all those new evidences which were not there in A.Y. 1989-90 are contemporaneous evidences to establish actual consumption of gold at higher purity level. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present Tax Appeals and/or remand the matter to the learned ITAT to consider the new evidences in detail. 6. All these appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri M.R. Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. It is submitted by Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue that the findings recorded by the learned ITAT are on appreciation of evidence more particularly considering the new evidences upon which the assessee has relied upon and after considering the said evidences the learned ITAT has observed that none of the evidences are contemporaneous evidences and/or evidences to prove the actual consumption of gold. It is submitted that therefore when the same is a finding of fact, it cannot be said that there arise any question of law much less substantial question of law. 6.1 It is submitted that as such the issue is already concluded by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court for A.Y. 1989-90. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has upheld such addition not only considering the evidences which were on record but on merits also which are identical and/or similar to the A.Y. 1990-91 to 1994-95. It is submitted that a similar modus operandi has been followed by the assessee during the years under consideration, which was there in the year 1989-90. It is submitted that it cannot be said that the learned ITAT has not considered and/or seen the additional evidences at all. It is submitted that after considering the new evidences which are relied upon by the assess, the learned ITAT has observed that none of the evidences are contemporaneous and/or evidences to suggest the actual consumption of gold. 6.2 Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has drawn the attention of the evidences which are relied upon by the assessee and has submitted that none of the evidences suggest the actual consumption of gold. 6.2 Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has drawn the attention of the evidences which are relied upon by the assessee and has submitted that none of the evidences suggest the actual consumption of gold. It is submitted that therefore the learned ITAT has rightly held that the new evidences are not contemporaneous and/or the evidences to suggest the actual consumption of gold. 6.3 It is submitted that therefore relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court for A.Y. 1989-90, the learned ITAT has rightly dismissed the appeals and has rightly confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss the present Tax Appeals. 7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for respective parties at length. Considering the submissions made by Shri Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee it appears that the main grievance is that though new evidences were produced for the year under consideration, which were not there in A.Y. 1989-90, without considering the same and solely relying upon the decision of this Court for A.Y. 1989-90, the learned ITAT has materially erred in dismissing the appeals and confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the assessee that the matter is required to be remanded to the learned ITAT to consider the new evidences produced which were not there for A.Y. 1989-90. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the assessee that the decision of this Court for A.Y. 1989-90 shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand for other assessment years i.e. 1990-91 to 1994-95. 7.1 To appreciate the above more particularly whether the learned ITAT has missed to consider new evidences produced for the years consideration, the grounds on which the Assessing Officer made the additions are required to be considered. It appears that the Assessing Officer noticed the gold content in the final product as per the Books of Accounts and as per the appraisal of customs authority. Therefore, the Assessing Officer worked out the excess consumption of gold which according to him had been actually sold in the local market. The Assessing Officer also noticed that similar modus operandi was done in the year 1989-90 also and there was no change in the modus operandi in the subsequent years under consideration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer worked out the excess consumption of gold which according to him had been actually sold in the local market. The Assessing Officer also noticed that similar modus operandi was done in the year 1989-90 also and there was no change in the modus operandi in the subsequent years under consideration. At this stage it appears that the assessee produced some further evidence which we have perused from the paper book produced and according to the assessee by producing such new evidences the case differs from 1989-90, as according to the assessee by using new evidences which were not there in the year 1989-90, they have been able to produce the evidence with respect to the actual consumption of gold in final product of ornaments which were exported. However, considering the evidences from the paper book produced, which according to the assessee are new evidences, we are of the opinion that as rightly observed by the learned ITAT none of the evidences can be said to be contemporaneous and/or the evidences to suggest the actual consumption of gold. Most of the evidences and the material produced can be said to be the correspondences and/or general requirement of use of gold. None of the documents/materials show the actual consumption of gold. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly observed and held that the evidences (new evidences) are not contemporaneous and/or the evidences to suggest actual consumption of gold. 7.2 As such the issue has been concluded by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of very assessee but with respect to A.Y. 1989-90 when similar question arose. The additions were made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the discrepancy in quantity of gold recorded in the Books of Accounts at the time when the ornaments were manufactured and received from the artisans, as compared to gold actually exported by the assessee to its foreign importers. In the year 1989-90, it was found that the assessee received gold ornaments, according to its records, having purity of 93.37%, however, some ornaments when were exported, the assessee recorded its purity as 91.66% (similar is the case in the years under consideration also). In the year 1989-90, it was found that the assessee received gold ornaments, according to its records, having purity of 93.37%, however, some ornaments when were exported, the assessee recorded its purity as 91.66% (similar is the case in the years under consideration also). Before the High Court the assessee's explanation that ornaments actually carried purity of 93.37% but were reflected in export documents having purity of 91.66% because the importers had desired such level of purity whereas the assessee to air on safer side used more gold so that stringent international standards were not even unintentionally breached, which would incur liability of rejection of consignment. Such explanation by the assessee was found unacceptable and inadequate and came to be rejected by all the lower Authorities which came to be confirmed by the High Court in Tax Appeal No. 346/2000 (A.Y. 1989-90). While confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer after noting some submissions which are now made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, the Division Bench has considered the submissions and observed and held as under in paras 7 to 10.1. "7. As can be seen from the questions framed, there are two main elements of assessee's contentions. Learned counsel Shri J.P. Shah's first contention [relatable to Question No. 2 framed above] was that the entire procedure of manufacturing ornaments was controlled by the State authorities under the Gold Control Act. Raw gold supplied to the karigars for preparation of ornaments was recorded in the books of the assessee. To such gold, the karigars would add alloy @ 7.100 grams per 100 grams of gold to achieve desired purity of gold of 22 carat. Even when such ornaments were received back after preparation, they were tested, certified and recorded in the assessee's records. It was thereafter not possible for any mischief or modification, particularly looking to the certificate issued by the Gems & Jewellery Export Promotion Council. Counsel pointed out that 22 carat of gold or for that matter any other carats would not have precise purity and would have a range of fineness of gold. He drew our attention to the specifications laid down by the Bureau of Standards, which provides as under:- 1. 22.3 Carat gold: It shall be of fineness not less than 970. 2. 22 Carat gold: It shall be of fineness not less than 916.6. 3. He drew our attention to the specifications laid down by the Bureau of Standards, which provides as under:- 1. 22.3 Carat gold: It shall be of fineness not less than 970. 2. 22 Carat gold: It shall be of fineness not less than 916.6. 3. 21 Carat gold: It shall be of fineness not less than 875. 4. 18 Carat gold: It shall be of fineness not less than 750. 5. 14 Carat gold: It shall be of fineness not less than 583.3. 6. 12 Carat gold: It shall be of fineness not less than 500. 7. 9 Carat gold: It shall be of fineness not less than 375. 7.1 Counsel therefore urged that the gold ornaments manufactured and exported by the assessee retained the same purity of 22 Carat [or other specifications as the case may be] irrespective of whether it had purity standard of 93.37% or 91.66%. 7.2 Counsel contended that as per the importers' requirements, the assessee would export ornaments of 22, 20, 18 or 14 carats and charge the importers according to the agreed percentage of gold for such ornaments. However, in order not to breach the stringent requirement of international standards of purity of gold, the assessee would prepare ornaments with slightly higher purity then what was the minimum standard asked for by the importers. The value of difference of gold was recovered in the form of higher labour charges. 7.3 Referring the first question of law framed, counsel contended that in any case there was no proof that the excess gold was sold in the local market. The same must therefore be considered as the assessee's additional export sale, which as per the tax policies of the Government was in any case exempt from payment of income tax. 7.3 As against that learned counsel Shri M.R. Bhatt for the Department took us through the evidence on record to contend that the revenue authorities and the Tribunal had concurrently come to the conclusion that there was sizeable discrepancy in the consumption of gold reflected by the assessee in its own books of account. The assessee was unable to explain such discrepancies. The assessee's explanation that it exported gold of greater purity and thereby greater quantity than what was reflected in the assessee's documents cannot be believed, and therefore, rightly not accepted by the authorities below. The assessee was unable to explain such discrepancies. The assessee's explanation that it exported gold of greater purity and thereby greater quantity than what was reflected in the assessee's documents cannot be believed, and therefore, rightly not accepted by the authorities below. Counsel submitted that the onus was on the assessee to explain such discrepancies. 8. Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it emerges that the revenue authorities as well as the Tribunal came to conclusion that there was considerable discrepancy in the quantity of gold recorded in the assessee's books at the time when the ornaments were manufactured and received from the artisans, as compared to the gold actually exported by the assessee to its foreign importers. 8.1 This is not even seriously disputed by the assessee. If we take as sample of such discrepancy that emerges in the category of 22 Carat gold ornaments, after supplying raw gold to the artisans and the artisans preparing gold ornaments after adding alloy in the specified quantity, the assessee received gold ornaments, according to the assessee's records having purity of 93.37%. The very same ornaments when were exported, the assessee recorded its purity as 91.66%. Some of these ornaments also were subject to actual test by the Customs authorities. The result also matches the assessee's claim of gold purity of 91.66%. Thus, in fact, there was considerable discrepancy between the two sets of documents pertaining to the same set of gold ornaments is undeniable. The assessee owed an explanation and had a duty to reconcile this discrepancy. The authorities found that the assessee failed in doing so. This was on the premise that the assessee's explanation was found unacceptable and inadequate. The assessee's only explanation was that the ornaments actually carried purity of 93.37% but were reflected in the export documents having purity of 91.66%. This according to the assessee was done because the importers had desired such level of purity whereas the assessee to err on safer side, used more gold so that the stringent international standards were not even unintentionally breached, which would incur liability of rejection of the consignment. 8.2 Such explanation of the assessee was rejected by the three authorities below. We are also unable to fathum why an exporter would declare lesser purity of gold than what was being actually exported. 8.2 Such explanation of the assessee was rejected by the three authorities below. We are also unable to fathum why an exporter would declare lesser purity of gold than what was being actually exported. As rightly observed by the CIT[A], if the gold ornaments were carrying greater purity value, and therefore, greater content of gold, the assessee had no reason to make a mis-declaration. In either case, assessee was meeting with the minimum standard of 22 carat gold. What the assessee had to charge from its importers had nothing to do with what the assessee may declare in the export documents regarding the purity of gold. As per the by lateral understanding, even if the importers would have paid the assessee for the gold purity at 91.66%, there was no reason why the assessee should shy away from declaring that the correct purity of the gold ornaments is 93.37%, if that was the real case. The CIT[A] also made a significant point in observing that the assessee could import only that much quantity of gold that was exported. By making mis-declaration therefore, the assessee was seriously reducing quantity of gold that would be available for import against the export undertaken by it. The analysis made by the Customs authorities also matched with that of the assessee's own declaration regarding purity of gold. 9. Had the revenue relied solely on the Customs analysis, we would have further examined the assessee's contention that such analysis was based on the touchstone method which may not yield highly accurate results. In the present case, however, assessee itself declared certain purity of gold which also considered with the random testing carried out by the Customs authorities. 10. The difference between the two sets of declarations was not minor or insignificant. It could not have been passed off as mixing of impurity or error in measuring standards. It was simply a case where the assessee utterly failed to explain the considerable difference in the gold quantity in two sets of documents maintained by itself. 10.1 It can therefore not be stated that the finding of the authorities below, as confirmed by the Tribunal, are per verse. It is also not true that in coming to such conclusions, the Revenue authorities ignored the presence of the certificate of the Gems & Jewellery Export Promotion Council. 10.1 It can therefore not be stated that the finding of the authorities below, as confirmed by the Tribunal, are per verse. It is also not true that in coming to such conclusions, the Revenue authorities ignored the presence of the certificate of the Gems & Jewellery Export Promotion Council. The contention that in absence of proof of local sale, it must be presumed to have been exported, in our opinion, is fallacious. It is not even the case of the assessee, barring his explanation about the higher purity of gold being exported when lower purity gold is declared in the export documents, that such gold was in some form or the other, separately or independently exported. When the authorities did not accept the assessee's explanation, it comes to a situation where such differential quantity of gold did not form part of the assessee's exports. The only conclusion, therefore, available to the authorities and therefore rightly reached at was that the gold was subjected to local sale. All in all, the issues considered by the Revenue authorities at a greater length, referring to and analyzing the evidence on record and once which were confirmed by the Tribunal by giving cogent and detailed reasons, in our opinion, do not suffer from any perversity. In the result, the questions are decided in negative - against the assessee. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed." 7.3 Therefore, as such the issue is concluded in the case of very assessee in A.Y. 1989-90. As observed hereinabove, the new evidences which according to the assessee were not there while deciding the assessment for A.Y. 1989-90, as observed hereinabove cannot be said to be contemporaneous and/or the evidences to show the actual consumption of gold. It cannot be said that the learned ITAT has at all not considered the said evidences. After considering the evidences as such there is a finding recorded by the learned ITAT that the evidences are not contemporaneous and/or evidences to suggest actual consumption. We are of the opinion that there is no material change with respect to 1989-90 (which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court) and the years under consideration, as the new evidences cannot be said to be the evidences to show actual consumption of gold. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the Authorities below, which are on appreciation of evidence on record. 8. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the Authorities below, which are on appreciation of evidence on record. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT. No substantial question of law arise in this group of Tax Appeals. Hence, all these Tax Appeals deserve to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed.