1. The main issue arising in this appeal relates to the applicability of the provisions of Section 44BB of Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act).
2. Briefly stated the facts are these: The assessee is a foreign company having its head office in USA. During the financial year 1995-96, it had received a contract from Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) for laying of pipelines through horizontal directional drilling across the Chambal and the Yamuna river. The total contractual receipts in the year under consideration amounted to Rs. 12,98,22,970/-. By invoking the provisions of Section 44BB, the assessee offered the net income at Rs. 1,29,82,297/- by applying the presumptive rate of 10% of the total receipts. The assessee was asked to explain as to how the provisions of Section 44BB were applicable to the present case. The explanation of the assessee before the AO was (i) that the pipelines laid by the assessee was to be used for the purpose of transportation of natural gas which falls within the meaning of 'mineral oil' for the purpose of Section 44BB (ii) that GAIL was processing the natural gas to produce LPG, propane, pentane etc. and thus, it was engaged in the business of production of mineral oils. Thus, it was submitted that the assessee was covered by the provisions of Section 44BB as it was providing services to GAIL which was engaged in the business of production of mineral oil. The assessee also relied on the definition of natural gas as provided in the Petroleum Tax Guide, 1998 as well as the definition of the word "production" provided in the said guide. Not satisfied with the said explanation of the assessee, the AO held that provisions of Section 44BB were not applicable to the present case by observing as under: "I am in total disagreement with the assessee's contention that M/s GAIL is in the business of production of "mineral Oils" as used in Section 44BB. The expression used in Section 44BB is "engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with, or supplying plant and machinery on hire used; or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils".
According to the rule of noscitur a sociis, the word 'production' would take colour from the associated words and expressions i.e.
"prospecting and extraction" and will have to be given a restricted meaning analogous to the associated words. The words, prospecting, extraction and production of mineral oils are therefore to be read together. CBDT Circular No. 495 dated 22.9.87, gives the scope and effect of the introduction of the new Section 44BB as follows: "A number of complications are involved in the computation of taxable income in the business of providing services and facilities in connection with or supply of plant and machinery on hire, used or to be used in the exploration or exploitation of mineral oils. With a view of simplifying the provisions of the Finance Act, 1987, has inserted a new Section 44BB." The explanatory note of the CBDT read with the provisions of Section 44BB makes it amply clear that the services which qualifies for consideration Under Section 44BB are for exploration and exploitation of mineral oils. The word "production" as used in Section 44BB is to be read along with the word "Extraction and Exploration". The intention of Section 44BB was not to give the benefit to all subsidiary processes and sub-processes and manufacturing activities involved with refining of mineral oils after the initiate stale of their production from the oil wells. If the assessee's contention is to be accepted, then all foreign companies involved with setting up of refineries, gas, crackers plant, LPG plants etc. would also qualify Under Section 44BB. This was never the intention of the said section which was intended only for foreign company engaged in the basic business of extraction and prospecting of mineral oils. It is only at that stage that the word production has been used. In other words, production within the mine precinct.
Coming down to the business activities of the GAIL, there is no doubt that M/s GAIL was in the business of production of LPG in the F.Y. 95-96 and 96-97. However, the major business of GAIL was that of transportation of natural gas through HBJ pipelines and its subsidiaries. M/s GAIL was not in the business of exploration or prospecting of natural gas. It was not owning any oil fields or gas fields. This part of the business was, and is still being handled by ONGC. M/s GAIL was buying its entire stock of natural gas from ONGC and transporting the same through its HBJ pipeline to its various clients who are then using the gas as raw material or as fuel. A very small part of the activities of the GAIL was with regard to the production of LPG. The assessee company was laying GAIL's pipeline under the Chambal and the Yamuna rivers crossings. It may be mentioned that GAIL has no LPG plant after these river crossings.
All of GAIL's LPG plants are before the above mentioned river crossings. Hence, it is clear that GAIL is not in the business of prospecting or production of mineral oils. The main business of GAIL is with regard to transportation of natural gas, and it was to facilitate this part of the business of GAIL that the assessee company was providing its services. Keeping in view these facts, it is clear that the business of the assessee company does not satisfy the conditions of Section 44 BB and hence, the provisions of that section are not applicable." 3. Proceeding further, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 144 since proper books of accounts were not produced before the AO.Finally, the best judgment was made on the total income of Rs. 5,73,63,187/- being estimated profit at 30% of the gross receipts of Rs. 19,12, 10,624/- as determined by him.
4. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the legal finding of the AO to the effect that the provisions of Section 44BB were not applicable to the facts of the present case. It was observed by him that process of production was already completed before the gas passed through the pipeline. Further, the gas which was then transported from one point to the other did not lost its basic identity/composition and the only temporary change that occurred was sweetening of the product to prevent corrosion. The process of manufacture/production was not carried out at this stage at all. Accordingly, the services provided by the assessee did not fall within the ambit of Section 44BB. He also confirmed the finding of the AO regarding the applicability of the provisions of Section 144. However, he was of the view that the net profit rate applied by the AO at 30% was on higher side and accordingly, he reduced the same to 20%. Still aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. The learned Sr. Counsel for Assessee, Mr. Singhvi, has assailed the orders of lower authorities by raising various submissions which are summarized as under: 1. That lower authorities were not justified in applying the rule of Noscitur a sociis in construing the scope of the words "proposing for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils" used in Section 44BB in as much as language used by the legislature is clear and unambiguous. Such rule can be applied only where there is ambiguity in the language used in a statute. Reliance was placed on the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court:State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR c) Shriram Vinayl & Chemical Industries v. Commr. of Customs, AIR 2001 SC 1283Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, AIR In addition to above judgments, he also relied on the Tribunal decision and the case of Mcdermott Intl., 49 ITD 590.
2. That the word "production" used in Section 44BB should be given its full play since it is of widest amplitude. Since 'Natural Gas' has been included in definition of 'Mineral Oils' as per the Explanation to Section 44BB, production of LPG, propane, Prutane, Pentene, CNG and SBP by GAIL would also fall within the ambit of the words "production of mineral oils" and consequently, the activities of assessee laying down the pipelines along the Yamuna and Chambal rivers would be covered by the provisions of Section 44BB. 3. That the lower authorities virtually have rewritten the Section 44BB by holding that it is intended only for the foreign companies engaged in the basic business of extraction and production of mineral oils. Such an interpretation is ex facie erroneous and renders redundant the distinct expressions 'services', 'facilities' and 'in connection with' and the phrase 'production' used in the section. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments in the case of UOI v. Devki Nandan Aggarwal, AIT 1992 SC 96, State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and Ors.,Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation, AIR 4. That lower authorities have misinterpreted the circular No. 494 dated 22.9.87 by holding that the word 'production' used in Section 44BB is to be read along with the words 'extraction' or 'exploitation' in cognate sense. The words 'exploration' or 'exploitation' used in the circular are of widest amplitude and, therefore, the word 'production' cannot be understood in the restricted sense. Further, a circular cannot be invoked for interpreting a statute (J.K. Steel Ltd. v. UOI, AIR 1970 SC 1173).
5. That the lower authorities were not justified in holding that GAIL was not engaged in the production of mineral oils in as much as AO & CIT(A) had admitted in their orders that GAIL was in the business of production of LPG in the years 1995-96 and 1996-97.
Facts on record shows that GAIL was admittedly engaged in the activities of producing mineral oils (LPG, CNG, Propane, Butane etc). Further, the authorities were not justified in observing that GAIL had no plants for producing LPG after the river crossing in as much as GAIL had six LPG plants along the main pipelines - two at Vijaypur, one at Vaghodia, one each at Usar, Auriya and Lakwa.
Further, GAIL has a CNG production plant at Dadri. Further, pipeline also supplies feed stock to Mathura Refinery.
6. That words 'in connection with' are of widest amplitude and, therefore, it cannot be said that pipelines should run through gas plants. So long as the pipeline is used as or provided in connection with GAIL's gas plants, Section 44BB would be attracted.
7. Section 44BB, being beneficial provision, should be liberally construed. Hence, any interpretation should lean in favour of assessee. Reliance was placed on following judgments: 6. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR has supported the order of CIT(A) by reiterating the reasonings given by AO and CIT(A). We have already reproduced the reasonings given by AO in earlier part of our order and, therefore, the same need not be repeated.
7. Rival submissions have been considered carefully in the light of case law referred to and the relevant material placed before us. The question for our consideration is whether the provisions of Section 44BB can be applied to the facts of present case. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the said provision: "Section 44BB : (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 28 to 41 and Section 43 and 43A, in the case of an assessee, being a non-resident, engaged in the business of providing services or facilities in connection with, or supplying plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils, a sum equal to ten per cent of the aggregate of the amounts specified in Sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of such business chargeable to tax under the head "Profits and Gains of business or profession" : 8. The perusal of above provision shows that following conditions must be satisfied in order to apply the above section: 2. The assessee must be engaged in the business of - providing services or facilities in connection with, supplying plant and machinery on hire used, or to be used, in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of, mineral oils including petroleum and natural gas.
10. There is no dispute that assessee is a non-resident company. The business of assessee was to lay the pipelines for carrying the natural gas purchased by GAIL. If such pipelines can be used in the prospecting for, or extraction or production of mineral oils, then it can be said that assessee was engaged in the business of providing facility in connection with the above activities. There is no requirement of the section that such non resident assessee should itself be engaged in the business of prospecting for, or extraction or production of minerals oils. To that extent, we are in agreement with ld. Sr. Counsel for assessee that lower authorities were not justified in making such observations. The computation of income of an assessee engaged in the business of prospecting for, or extraction or production, of mineral oils is outside the scope of Section 44BB. So, the real dispute for our consideration is whether the facility of laying the pipelines provided by the assessee is in connection with, the prospecting for, or extraction or production, of mineral oils including petroleum or natural gas. In other words, the question for consideration is whether GAIL is engaged in the activities of "prospecting for, or extraction or production, of mineral oil including petroleum or natural gas".
11. The stand of the assessee through out has been two folds - (1) that production of LPG, Propane, Butane etc. by GAIL amended to production of natural gas; and (2) that the word 'production' used in Section 44BB is of widest amplitude and, therefore, would include the process carried at by GAIL and the scope of the word 'production' cannot be restricted to production of natural gas at well heads i.e. producing natural gas from the bowels of (SIC) On the other hand, the stand of the revenue has been that production of LPG, Propane, Butane, etc. does not amount to production of natural gas as the process of production had already been completed prior to the purchase of natural gas by GAIL from ONGC.12. After giving our due consideration to this issue, we are unable to accept the contentions of the learned Sr. Counsel for assessee. He has not been able to demonstrate that LPG, Propane or Butane amounts to natural gas. On the other hand, our study shows that these items cannot be considered as natural gas. 'Natural Gas' is not defined in the Income-tax Act, 1961. As per Petroleum Tax Guide, 1998, relied upon by the assessee, it means as under: "Natural Gas" means wet gas, dry gas, all other gaseous hydrocarbons and all substances contended therein, including sulphur, carbon dioxide, nitrogen out excluding helium, which are produced from oil gas wells, excluding liquid hydrocarbons that are condensed or extracted from gas and are liquid at normal temperature and pressure conditions, but including the residue gas remaining after the condensation or extraction of liquid hydrocarbons from gas." According to 21^st Century Universal Encycopedia, Volume 20, relied upon by asseesee, it is defined as under: "Natural Gas" comprises of accumulations of petroleum when the petroleum is predominantly gaseous. It is mainly a mixture of methane, ethane, propane and butane in which methane predominates." As per Webster's Encyclopeidc unabridged Dictionary (New Revised edition), Natural gas means - combustible gas formed naturally in the earth, as in regions yielding petroleum, consisting usually of over 80% of Methane together with minor amounts of ethane, propane, butane, nitrogen, and, sometimes helium: used as fuel and to make carbon black and acetylene.
"Natural gas is a combustible mixture of hydrocarbon gases. While natural gas is formed primarily of methane, it can also include ethane, propane, butane and pentane. The composition of natural gas can vary widely, but below is a chart outlining the typical makeup of natural gas before it is refined.
From the various meanings given above, it is clear that natural gas is formed primarily of Methane which varies between 70-90% and remaining constituents are in negligible percentage. Another feature is that it is formed in the earth which is extracted or produced through mining process in the natural form.
13. On the contrary, LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas) does not contain methane at all and is also not found as such in the earth: According to Webster's Encyclopedic unabridged Dictionary (New Revised Edition), LPG means - "a gas liquefied by compression, consisting of flammable hydro carbon as propane and butane, obtained as a by product from refining of petroleum or from natural gas: used chiefly as a domestic fuel in rural areas, as an industrial and motor fuel, and in organic synthesis, esp. of synthetic rubber." As per I.S.O. 6678: 1991(E) - "LPG means liquids composed pre-dominantly of any of the following hydro carbons or mixture thereof: Propane, Propene, butane".
"'LPG' is a mixture of hydrocarbons, which are in gaseous state at ambient temperature and pressure but these are liquiefied under pressure for easy storage, handline and transportation in pressurized vessels. It is obtained through Curde Oil refining or from Natural Gas through fractionation. Butane and Propane are the main constituent hydrocarbon's in LPG. Others present in traces or small fractions are Iso-butane, butylenes, n-butane, propylene etc." "'LPG' means liquids composed predominantly of any of the following hydrocarbons or mixture thereof: propane, propene, butanes and butene." As per Clause (i) of Section 2 of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000, LPG is defined as: "'a mixture of light hydrocarbons which may include propane, isobutane, normal butane, butylenes etc., which are gaseous at normal ambient temperature and Atmospheric pressure but may be condensed to liquid state at normal ambient temperature by the application of pressure and which conforms to Indian Standard specification number IS 4576." From the above reading, it is clear that LPG does not contain Methane while Natural gas is formed mainly of methane around 80%. LPG is mixture mainly of propane and butane which is extracted from either petroleum or natural gas. So LPG and natural gas are entirely different commercial items. LPG is a by product of natural gas. Therefore, GAIL can be said to be a manufacturer of LPG and consequently, cannot be said to be a manufacturer/producer of natural gas. What is produced by GAIL is not the natural gas but a different item i.e. LPG. Hence, facility/service provided by the assessee to GAIL cannot be said in connection with prospecting for, extraction or production of mineral oil as contemplated Under Section 44BB.14. The learned counsel for assessee has further submitted, for the first time before the Tribunal, that GAIL was also producing CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) which is nothing but natural gas and, therefore, GAIL could be said to be engaged in the production of Natural Gas. Except making this submission, he has not substantiated the same by referring to any material. However, in the course of our study, we find the definition of CNG as under: "Natural gas which is comprised primarily of methane, compressed to a pressure at or above 2,400 pounds per square inch and stored in special high-pressure containers. It is used as a fuel for natural gas-powered vehicles. CNG vapor is lighter than air." "Natural gas which is comprised primarily of methane, compressed to a pressure at or above 2,400 pounds per square inch and stored in special high-pressure containers. It is used as a fuel for natural gas-powered vehicles, mainly by buses." In a write up, Shri A.K. Das, Managing Director, Indraprastha Gas Limited has explained CNG as under: "CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) is a gaseous fuel consisting of mixture of hydrocarbons mainly methane. Natural Gas is compressed to a pressure of 200 to 250 bars, form CNG - Compressed Natural Gas.
Colourless, odourless, non-carcinogenic and non-toxic, CNG is inflammable and lighter than air. It is not a liquid fuel, and is not the same as LPG-(Liquified Petrol cum Gas) which consists of propane and butane in liquid form." From the above definition, it is clear that when natural gas is compressed to a particular pressure for storing, it is considered as CNG. Admittedly, GAIL does not have any gas well. It simply purchases natural gas which, perhaps, can be said to be compressed by it. The question, therefore, would be whether such process amounts of production.
15. The word 'production' has been defined as an act of producing. In Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (New Revised Edition), the word 'produce' has been defined as under: 1. To bring into existence; give rise to; cause: To produce steam; to produce a reaction. 2. To bring into existence by intellectual or creative ability: To produce a novel; to produce a great painting.
3. To create (something having exchange value): to produce goods for sale. 4. To bring forth; give birth to; bear: to produce a litter of puppies. 5. To provide, furnish or supply; yield: a mine producing silver. 6. To cause to accrue: stocks producing unexpected dividends. 7. To bring forward; present to view or notice; exhibit: ;o produce one's credentials. 8. To bring (a play, movie, opera) before the public, 9. To extend or prolong a line. 10. To create, bring forth, or yield offsprings, products etc. 11. To create economic value; bring crops, goods etc to a point at which they will command a price.
Mere reading of above clearly shows that the word 'production' is of widest amplitude. This can be broadly categorized as under: 1. Production by natural process : - giving birth to a child, producing of milk by cow/Buffalo, producing of eggs by birds etc., 2. Production by use of skill: - producing a painting, sculpture, play etc.
4. Production by manufacturing process: - producing of vehicle, household goods, machinery etc.
A perusal of the above definition clearly shows that something must come into existence for the first time as a result of either of the processes mentioned above. Therefore, if by any process, new item does not emerge, then it cannot be said that anything is produced by such process. So, the word 'Process' is rather wider even then the word 'production'. All production is result of some process but all process need not result into production. First two processes mentioned above are not applicable to the present case at all. Third process is also not applicable since GAIL is not engaged in the business of mining. So, the only question to be considered is whether GAIL can be said to be engaged in production of Natural Gas through the manufacturing process.
16. Considering the aforesaid meaning of the words 'production', and 'CNG' as well as the facts of present case, we are of the opinion that natural gas purchased by GAIL continues to be natural gas as a result of process carried on by it, though, in a compressed form (CNG) and resultantly no new item emerges as a result of such process.
Consequently, GAIL cannot be said to be engaged in the production of natural gas. This view is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 791. In that case, the respondent was refining the crude oil by removing the impurities through the solvent refinery plant. The question arose whether any process of manufacture was involved. The apex court held that no manufacturing process was involved in the process of refining. Their Lordships held as under: "Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation, anew and different article must emerge having a distinctive character, name and use".
Similar observations were made by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tungbhadra Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer, 11 STC 827. For the benefit of this order, the same are being reproduced as under: "When raw groundnut oil is converted into refined oil, there is no doubt processing, but this consists merely in removing from raw groundnut oil that constitute part of the raw oil which is not really oil. The elements removed in the refining process consists of free fatty acids, phospoticides and unsaponfiable matter. After the removal of this non-oleic matter thereafter the oil continues to be groundnut oil and nothing more. The matter removed from the raw groundnut oil not being oil cannot be used, after separation, as oil or for any purpose for which oil could be used. In other words, the processing consist in the non-oily content of the raw oil being separated and removed, rendering the only content of the oil 100 per cent. For this reason refined oil continues to be groundnut oil within the meaning of rules 5(1)(k) and 18(2) notwithstanding that such oil does not possess the characteristic colour, or taste, odour etc. of the raw groundnut oil".
17. In the case of Sterling Foods v. State of Karnataka (1986), 63 STC 239, it was held by the apex court that where raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters are subjected to a process of cutting of heads and tails, peeling, deveining, cleaning and freezing. They do not cease to be shrimps, prawns and lobsters and become another distinct commodity.
There is no essential difference between raw shrimps and processed shrimps.
18. In the case of Harbilas Rai and Sons (1968) 21 STC 17, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that boiling and cleaning of pig bristles with soap and other chemicals and arranging them according to their size does not amount to process of manufacture.
19. In view of the above decisions, we hold that process of compression of Natural Gas does not amount to production since natural gas, even after the process, essentially remains the same and, therefore, GAIL could not be said to be engaged in the production of Natural gas.
20. Even presuming, for the sake of argument, that CNG emerged as a different commodity as a result of such process then GAIL would be considered as a producer of different item other than the natural gas and resultantly, it would not be considered as producer of Natural Gas.
Considering from any angle, GAIL cannot be said to be engaged in the production of natural gas.
21. In view of the above discussions, the contention of the Sr. Counsel for assessee that GAIL was engaged in the production of natural gas within the ambit of Section 44BB rejected.
22. As a result of the above finding , the other contention of Mr.
Singhvi that the word 'production' should be understood in the widest sense as per plain and natural meaning and not in the restricted sense as per rule of Noscitur a sociis has become academic. However, we would deal with the same since such contention was argued at a great length.
There cannot be any dispute to the legal position canvassed by him that Noscitur a sociis is merely a rule of interpretation and the same cannot be applied where language used by the legislature is plain and unambiguous. Where language is clear and unambiguous, nothing can be added to or taken away from a statute unless intention of the legislature appears to be different. On the other hand, it is also the settled legal position that words in a section are not to be interpreted by having those words on one hand and dictionary meaning on the other. In spelling out the meaning of words in a section, one must take into consideration the context in which such words are used (Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co.
Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1023). The words 'production of in Section 44BB are qualified by the words "Mineral oils" which, as per Explanation, includes Petroleum & Natural Gas. This, itself shows that contextual meaning has to be given to word 'production' as appearing in Section 44BB.23. Even otherwise, applying the plain and natural meaning of the word production, we do not find merit in he submission of Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for assessee for the reasons given hereafter. We have already set out the dictionary meaning of the word 'Production' in Para 15 of our order. We have also broadly categorised the dictionary meaning into four categories which, even for the sake of repetition are stated below: 1. Production by natural process : giving birth to a child, producing of milk by cow/Buffalo, producing of eggs by birds etc., 2. Production by use of skill: - producing a painting, sculpture, play etc.
4. Production by manufacturing process: - producing of vehicle, household goods, machinery etc.
First two categories are not relevant in the present case since the same cannot be applied with reference to mineral oils. Third category is directly relevant in as much as all mineral oils are produced through mining process. There is no dispute that the word 'production' would include the production by mining process. The contention of assessee's counsel is that process of production cannot be restricted to process of mining. The only category left for consideration is the process of manufacturing. This category would be applicable only where original identity of the goods is lost in the process and new commercial commodity emerges as a result of such process. Reference can again be made to the loading judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that a different article must emerge having a distinct character, name and use. If the original identity remains substantially then it would not amount to manufacture despite the process carried on by assessee. (Tungbhadra industries v. CTO, 11 STC 827 SC). So, in the above premises, the only question is whether post mining operations, carried on by GAIL in respect of natural gas purchased by it, can be said to be covered by the plain and natural meaning of the word 'production'.
24. In our humble opinion, post mining operations carried on by GAIL would not fell within the definition of the word 'production' used by the legislature Under Section 44BB. We have already held that process of extraction of Propane, Butane etc. from the natural gas and producing of LPG by mixing these two items in a particular ratio at a particular pressure had resulted in the production of different item i.e. LPG which is entirely different from natural gas. We have also held that CNG continues to be essentially the same item i.e. natural gas, even after the process of compression: In view of these findings, it cannot be said that post mining operations i.e. process to manufacture LPG, Propane or Butane etc. or process to compress natural gas would fall within the plain meaning of the word 'production' in Section 44BB. In our view, the words 'extraction or production' have been used as interchangeable words and are restricted of mining operations since natural gas cannot be produced by any process except the mining process Therefore, it is held that even as per plain and natural meaning, the word 'production' used by the legislature in Section 44BB would include only production by mining process and would not include production of LPG, Propane, Butane etc as well as CNG by post mining process.
25. In view of the above discussion, we reject both the contentions raised by the ld. Sr. Counsel for assessee. Having held so, the other submissions, if any, does not require any comment. Hence, the findings of CIT(A) are, therefore, upheld.26. The next issue relates to the applicability of Section 144 and estimation of net profit. The grounds raised in this behalf have not been pressed before us and, therefore, the same are dismissed.
27. In the result, order of CIT(A) is upheld and consequently, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.