9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same was not examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of original proceedings Moreover, the Assessing Officer himself in the letters written to the audit team as well as to the concerned Addl.CIT had stated in very clear terms that the issue relating to the valuation of closing stock was duly examined during the course of original assessment proceedings. Thus find ourselves in agreement with the learned CIT(A) that the issue relating to the valuation of closing stock having been examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings under S.143(3), the reopening of the assessment on the same issue was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible in law, as held inter alia in the case of Kelivinator India Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ). We therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) holding the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3) read with S.147 as invalid and upholding the same, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assesse. - ITA No.146/Hyd/14, Cross Objection No.25/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2015 - Shri P.M.Jagtap A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valuation of closing stock was thoroughly examined while completing the assessment originally under S.143(3) and the reopening of the assessment on the same issue was invalid, as it was prompted by a mere change of opinion. The Assessing Officer did not find merit in the submission made by the assessee and proceeded to complete the re-assessment under S.143(3) read with S.147 vide his order dated 31.3.2013 making therein, an addition of ₹ 4,96,74,352 to the total income of the assessee on account of alleged under valuation of closing stock. 4. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3) read with S.147, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), challenging the validity of the said assessment as well as disputing the addition made therein on account of alleged under valuation of closing stock on merit. As regards the preliminary issue regarding relating to the validity of the reopening, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings had raised a specific query regarding the basis of the cost relating to the portion of the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43(3) read with S.147 as invalid, the learned CIT(A) did not consider it necessary to decide the other issue raised by the assessee in its appeal on merits relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged under-valuation of closing stock. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), Revenue has come in appeal before us, challenging the action of the CIT(A) in cancelling the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3) read with S.147 holding the same to be invalid, while the assessee has filed its cross objection contending that the learned CIT(A) ought to have also decided the issue relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of under-valuation of closing stock on merits. 7. The Learned Departmental Representative while supporting the appeal of the Revenue submitted that the issue relating to the valuation of closing stock was not examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings as is evident from the order passed by him under S.143(3) . He invited our attention to the copy of the said order placed on record and submitted that there is nothing in the said order to show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer in the original assessment while accepting the said valuation was not a possible view. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee during the year under consideration purchased one property situated at Panjagutta, Hyderabad for ₹ 13.13 cores and sold a portion of the said property, i.e. ground floor for consideration of ₹ 11 crores. The cost of the portion of the said property sold during the year under consideration was taken by the assessee as ₹ 7.6 crores, on the basis of a valuation report and the balance amount of ₹ 5.53 crores being cost of the remaining portion of the property continued to be held by the assessee was shown as closing stock. During the course of original assessment proceedings under S.143(3), the relevant details and documents relating to these transactions were called for by the Assessing Officer, as is evident from the relevant order sheet entries, and since the issue relating to the valuation of closing stock adopted by the assessee was directly linked with these transactions, we find it difficult to accept the contention of the Learned Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
