9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Held that:- As the assessee has produced bills amounting to Rs.2,42,501/- and has claimed in its return of income before the department merely because there was delay in making the claim and the claim was not made at the time of survey itself or at the time of making statement of the partner of the assessee-firm, it could not be said that the facts should not have been verified by the AO and credit of the bills claimed to be available at the business premises of the assessee at the time of survey was not allowable. There is no material before us to suggest that any exercise to verify the genuineness of the bills was made by the AO at any stage of the assessment and no reason for not doing so could be assigned - in favour of assessee. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken by the AO at Rs.66,61,760/-. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that some of the goods of the assessee had become obsolete and out of fashion, and therefore, these were put up for sale at 50% discount. He submitted that the department has valued the stock by taking its value at 100% and has not allowed any deduction on account of out of fashion stock for which the assessee has put up for sale at 50% discount at the second floor of its business premises. He referred to relevant portions of the assessment order and the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) and pointed out that discount at 50% offered by the assessee during the sale could not be controverted on behalf of the Revenue. He referred to the statement of Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rket value We find that survey action was taken at the premises of the assessee under Section 133A of the Act on 14.10.2003, and during the survey action, the value of stock was worked out at cost price. The department has made a suitable deduction on account of Gross Profit out of physical stock found at the time of survey at its sale price in order to arrive the cost price of the physical stock. It is not uncommon that some part of the stock of sari become out of fashion after a lapse of time and have to be put up for sale by offering some discount to the customers. But in accordance with the accepted principles of accounting, the value of stock found physically has to be adopted uniformly either at market price or at cost price, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) on this issue is confirmed and the ground no.1 of the assessee s appeal is dismissed. 5. The ground no.2 of the assessee s appeal reads as under: 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the stock, which was received but the bills for which were not credited in the books of accounts, pending for accounting. In fact bills were there but it is not understood why survey parties not taken into consideration. As it was genuine stock for which no debit was made, it is submitted that the addition of Rs.2,42,000/- be deleted. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that bills for Rs.2,42,501/- were available at the business premises of the assessee at the time of survey and even serial numbers were put on them by sur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en verified by the AO and credit of the bills of Rs.2,42,501/- claimed to be available at the business premises of the assessee at the time of survey was not allowable. There is no material before us to suggest that any exercise to verify the genuineness of the bills of Rs.2,42,501/- was made by the AO at any stage of the assessment and no reason for not doing so could be assigned, and therefore, the addition made merely on suspicion could not be sustained, without bringing any material on record to doubt the genuineness thereof, and accordingly the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the ground no.2 of the assessee s appeal is allowed. 8. The ground no.3 and 4 of the assessee s appeals are as under: 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions of the learned counsel of the assessee. 12. We have considered rival submissions and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that ITAT is taking consistent view on the issue of admissibility of appeal filed by the Revenue in the light of various instructions issued by CBDT from time to time, viz. Instruction No.1979 dated 27-3-2000, No.1985 dated 29-6-2000, No.6 of 2003 dated 17-70-2003, No.19 of 2003 dated 23-12-2003, No.5/2004 dated 27-5-2004, No.2/2005 dated 24-10-2005 and No.5/2007 dated 16-7-2007 and Instruction No.F.No.279/Misc.142/ 2007-IT dated 15-5-2008 wherein monetary limits for filing departmental appeals (Income-tax matters) and other conditions were specified, restricting filing appeals before Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
