9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al by the assessee, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not have estimated the sale price on the basis of rates of closing stock or some other notional basis without pointing out any defect in the sale price. The Tribunal while partly allowing the appeal of the assessee had sustained the addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- in the trading account. A perusal of para 8 of the order of the Tribunal shows that no legally justified reasons have been recorded for arriving at the said conclusion. In view of the above, the matter requires to be remanded. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh on mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e closing stock price or opening stock price? 2. The facts, in short, necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein are that the assessee filed his return of income on 29.9.2008 for the assessment year 2009-10 declaring an income of ₹ 3,79,160/-. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 29.12.2011 (Annexure A-1) at an income of ₹ 45,03,160/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 41,24,000/- on account of differences in opening stock price and sale price. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity the CIT(A) ]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 3.4.2013 (Annexure A-2) dismissed the appeal of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee failed to justify the adoption of sale price at less than opening stock price with documentary evidence. Further, the Assessing Officer held the said addition was the only income which the assessee got out of books of account and had not declared in his returned income. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not have estimated the sale price on the basis of rates of closing stock or some other notional basis without pointing out any defect in the sale price. The Tribunal while partly allowing the appeal of the assessee had sustained the addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
