9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee's contention that AO was wrong to hold that the closing stock was not correctly valued on the basis of which by applying FIFO method he made an addition of ₹ 2,11,326/- on the basis of difference in value of unsold closing stock by that method and also rejected the account books which were duly audited by applying the provisions of section 145 on the sole basis of difference in unsold closing stock. Further, the AO has violated the provisions of law by adopting the FIFO method on his own without pointing out the defects in LIFO method which is a prescribed method without pin pointing the defects in the method constantly applied by the assessee on the basis of which if proper profit cannot be deduced. AO has wrongly applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of justice,direct the AO to decide the Application u/s. 154 filed by the assessee first and then decide the issue in dispute by passing a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 3478/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2015 - H. S. Sidhu, JM, J. For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Robin Rawal, Sr. DR ORDER Per H. S. Sidhu, JM. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 25.2.2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut for the asstt. year 2006-07 and the following grounds have been raised: 1. a) That all the purchases and direct expenses under differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut jurisdiction. (4.) (Wrongly mentioned as Ground No. 3 in the Appeal) That the Ld. Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing the determined brought forward losses amounting to ₹ 6,44,262/-. Brought forwarded losses on facts and in law deserves to be allowed against income of the year under consideration. 5. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest u/s 2348 was not leviable. Levy of interest u/s 2348 deserves to be deleted being illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 30/11/06 declaring total income at ₹ 35,679/-. Order u/s 143( 1) of the IT Act was passed on 22/09/07 at the returned income. The cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Against the assessment order dated 13.10.2008, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 25.2.2014 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. In this case the Notice was sent to the Assessee for hearing by Regd. AD Post for today i.e. 06.07.2015 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10, but nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed. In my considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again on the same address. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the case may be decided exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR. 5. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 6. I have heard the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is a prescribed method without pin pointing the defects in the method constantly applied by the assessee on the basis of which if proper profit cannot be deduced. I also find that as per Apex Court that it is the choice of the assessee to apply any method for determining the profit, therefore, by charting the method on his own is without jurisdiction. Apart from the above, in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. DCIT 64 TTJ (Pune) 815, it has been held that LIFO method of valuation stock is one of the recognized method of accounting and where the Department has accepted the same in the case of assessee for more than 20 years it cannot be allowed to unsettle the settled position and reject that method in absence of any fresh material, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are allowed. 8. With regard to ground no. 4 (wrongly mentioned as Ground No. 3), I find that this ground is related to carry forward of loss not claimed by the assessee in computation of income. The assessee has submitted this was a mistake. This mistake was not pointed out during the assessment proceedings. However, the assessee made application u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act which has not been disposed off by the AO. I find that Ld. CIT(A) in his finding has observed that this carry forward of loss cannot be allowed at appellate stage because the same was not claimed in the assessment and this matter is still pending u/s. 154 before the AO, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the said ground, which is in my opinion is contrary to the law and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
