9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 8 and only 1/5t h of such expenses has been claimed as deduction. CIT(Appeals) restored this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer mentioning that Assessing Officer while giving effect to this order will re-check the amount actually claimed by the assessee and give consequential relief. This ground of appeal is allowed subject to the directions given above. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of insurance - difference in the stock as taken in the books of accounts - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that:- no interference is called for in the order of CIT(Appeal s). The assessee held the insurance of the stock of ₹ 1.25 crores, but it does not mean that the assessee was having the said stock in its books of accounts. Even otherwise, the stock policy has been taken on 12.02.2008 while the value of stock in the balance sheet has to be taken at the end of the year, i.e. 31.03.2008 in the impugned case. The basic presumption made by the Assessing Officer is incorrect while making the addition on the basis of difference in the stock as taken in the books of accounts. We accordingly confirm the order of CIT(Appeals) - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 16/KOL/ 2013 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported in 16 ITR (Tribunal) 1, but the said decision has not been approved by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Crescent Export s Syndicate in ITA No. 23 of 2013. The Hon ble High Court took the following view:- Before dealing with the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the assessees in both the appeals we have to examine the correctness of the majority views in the case of Merilyn Shipping and Transports. We already have quoted extensively both the majority and the minority views expressed in the aforesaid case. The main thrust of the majority view is based on the fact that the Legislature has replaced the expression amounts credited or paid with the expression payable in the final enactment. Comparison between the pre-amendment and post amendment law is permissible for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied or the object sought to be achieved by an amendment. This is precisely what was done by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator reported in 2010(2) SCC 723. But the same comparison between the draft and the enacted law is not permissible. Nor can the draft or the bill be used for the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich included the words but for the provisions of this Act is not adequately protected by legislation for welfare and benefits of the labour force in the State , these precise words were removed by the legislature and the definition was made limited as it has been finally legislated upon. It is to be noted that when the Bill came to be passed and received the assent of the Vice-President on 05-06-1969 and was first published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette Extraordinary, Part IV on 13-06-1969, the aforementioned words were omitted. Therefore, this would be a clear pointer to the legislative intent that the legislature being conscious of the fact and being armed with all the Committee reports and also being armed with the factual data, deliberately avoided those words. What the appellants are asking was to read in that definition, these precise words, which were consciously and deliberately omitted from the definition. That would amount to supplying the casus omissus and we do not think that it is possible, particularly, in this case. The law of supplying the casus omissus by the courts is extremely clear and settled that though this Court may supply the casus omissus, it wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1stApril, 2013 should be held to have already become operative prior to the appointed date cannot also be acceded to for the same reason indicated above. The law was deliberately made harsh to secure compliance of the provisions requiring deductions of tax at source. It is not the case of an inadvertent error. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that the majority views expressed in the case of Merilyn Shipping Transports are not acceptable. The submissions advanced by learned advocates have already been dealt with and rejected. Since the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court did not approve the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Merilyn Shipping Transport Ltd vs.- ACIT, on the basis of which the ld. CIT(Appeals) has allowed the relief to the assessee, we, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore this issue to the file of the CIT(Appeals) with a direction that the ld. CIT(Appeals) shall re-decide the appeal of the assessee afresh in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity to the assessee. 4. Ground No. 2 relates to the allowance of relief of ₹ 94,741/- by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown stock in it s audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2008 at ₹ 74,09,486/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, noted that the average by applying the average rate of purchase, the value of closing stock was almost the same, i.e. ₹ 75,00,000/- approx. The difference between the insurance value and the stock shown by the assessee is the same and the Assessing Officer treated the same as undisclosed stock and made the addition of ₹ 75,00,000/-. 10. When the matter went before the CIT(Appeal s), ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee has taken the insurance policy for ₹ 1.25 crores while the stock as per the books were ₹ 75 lakhs. The difference was ₹ 50,00,000/- by mistake. The Assessing Officer has worked out the same at ₹ 75,00,000/-, in fact, he made an addition of ₹ 50,00,000/-. CIT(Appeal s) after hearing the submissions of the assessee and after noting that the insurance policy was taken on 12.02.2008 took the view t hat the assessee was not having stock for which the insurance policy has been taken and, therefore, he deleted the addition by observing as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
