9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 21st November, 2008 in ITA No. 349/Del/2005 pertaining to the block period from 1st April, 1996 to 3rd September, 2002. 2. The Assessing Officer had noticed discrepancy of stock and, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the show cause notice issued by the Excise Department. No independent enquiry or verification has been made either by the A.O. or by the ld. CIT(A). The basis for addition is only the proceedings initiated by Excise Department. When the CESAT finally decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that there was no such discrepancy in the stock as so initially made out by the Excise Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee, whose statement was recorded by the Central Excise authorities, has not been examined by the AO. Further, the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine them. Based on the above findings, both the authorities are correct in deleting the additions made by the AO. The findings given by the authorities are based on valid materials and evidence and it is a question of fact a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, 2010 when this matter first came up for admission before us, we passed the following order: "ORDER 08.01.2010 In this appeal, the only question that arises is with regard to discrepancy of stocks of raw materials between the books of accounts and the physical verification. The said discrepancy was pointed out when the officers of the Anti-Evasion Wing of the Central Excise Department made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine the records and to place the material, if any, before this court to show that the Income-tax Department also had independent evidence with regard to the discrepancy in stocks. Renotify on 14.01.2010." 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue has not been able to point out any independent evidence with regard to the discrepancy in stocks. 6. Consequently, we see no reason to interfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
