JUDGMENT : Bharati Sapru & Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ. 1. We have heard Sri Shakeel Ahmad learned counsel for the appellant assessee and the learned standing counsel Sri Subham Agarwal. 2. As the controversy involved in both the appeal is identical, the same is being decided by a common judgment and order being passed in Income Tax Appeal no. 148 of 2016 as the leading case. The defect pointed out in the Income Tax Appeal no. 58 of 2016 is removed, the deficiency is made good. 3. The Income Tax Appeal no. 148 of 2016 has been filed by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. Out of the questions of law (i) to (iv) framed in the appeal, this appeal is admitted by this court on 30.5.2016 on the questions of law (i) and (ii), which are herein-under: "(i) Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the well reasoned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without assigning any good reason to estimate the yield of sugar at 8% and baggase at 33.21%? (ii) Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deviating from the findings of the Tribunal in appellant's own case for earlier assessment year?" 4. The appellant assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of sugar and in its process of manufacturing of sugar, the assessee obtains sugar and bagasse. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, the assessing officer took note of the fall in the yield of bagasse and called for explanation of the assessee. He estimated the production of bagasse at 36% as against 33.06% declared by the assessee and made a corresponding addition of Rs. 83,40,643/- to the income of the assessee. 6. Similarly in respect of manufacturing of sugar, the assessing officer estimated yield of sugar at 9% instead of 7.25% declared by the assessee and made a corresponding addition of Rs. 3,00,73,793/- to the income of the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the C.I.T. (Appeal). 83,40,643/- to the income of the assessee. 6. Similarly in respect of manufacturing of sugar, the assessing officer estimated yield of sugar at 9% instead of 7.25% declared by the assessee and made a corresponding addition of Rs. 3,00,73,793/- to the income of the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the C.I.T. (Appeal). Amongst others, it was urged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the manufacturing activities of the assessee is regulated by excise law and the entire production of sugar and bagasse are recorded in the excise record which are subjected to the inspections and verification by the excise authorities from time to time. 8. Based on the above, it is further asserted on behalf of the assessee that no concealment or suppression had ever been noted by the excise authorities in respect of production of sugar and bagasse by the assessee and as such the manufacturing activities disclosed by the assessee was fully verified and liable to be accepted. 9. Further it was contended that the additions made merely by comparing the results achieved by the assessee with those of a nearby sugar mills, was not the sound basis or criteria to reject the book results based on excise record. 10. The above arguments made by the assessee in the appeal found favour with the C.I.T. (Appeal) who deleted the additions following the earlier order of the tribunal in the case of assessee itself. 11. The matter was then carried to the tribunal by the department wherein a reliance was placed on different yield percentage achieved by the assessee in respect of production of sugar and bagasse in different years and the tribunal has adopted average yield at 8% in respect of sugar and 33.21% in respect of bagasse looking to the assessee's past record. 12. Sri Shubham Agarwal learned standing counsel has relied on a decision dated 5.7.2016 passed in Income Tax Appeal no. 151 of 2016 which was a decision in the appeal filed by the department against the order of the tribunal wherein the department had contended that the yield of sugar be estimated at 9% not at 8% as accepted by the tribunal. 13. 151 of 2016 which was a decision in the appeal filed by the department against the order of the tribunal wherein the department had contended that the yield of sugar be estimated at 9% not at 8% as accepted by the tribunal. 13. While the above department's appeal stand dismissed ex-parte without there representation by the assessee, suffice it to say that by the said order this court has refused to entertain the appeal filed by the department claiming a higher estimation. The issue of further reduction of the yield on account of documentary evidence in the shape of excise record was neither raised nor considered in that appeal and in fact it was not an issue adjudicated by this court. 14. Thus while the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has looked at the assessment in the context of the evidence specific to the year in question namely excise records and thereafter proceeded to delete the additions, but the tribunal has not returned any finding as to the correctness of the figure recorded in the excise record and has proceeded on an independent reasoning namely of the similar results achieved by the assessee in different years. While each assessment year is an independent unit and findings are required to be returned specific to the evidence i.e. adduced by the parties on year to year basis, the reasoning given by the tribunal de hors the evidence existing on record is not sustainable inasmuch as specific evidence and reasoning that had been considered by the C.I.T. (Appeal) was required to be weighed first and if the same any estimation was to be made thereafter, other evidence may have been relevant. 15. We are therefore of the opinion that the matter requires to be examined afresh by the tribunal especially in view of the excise record produced by the assessee before the C.I.T. (Appeal) as also before the tribunal. The matter is therefore remitted to the tribunal to examine the issue in the light of evidence existing on record with special reference to the excise record. The matter on remand may be decided by the tribunal within three months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order which shall be produced by the assessee before the tribunal within the next 15 days. 16. The questions of law are decided accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of as above.