9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law :- "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made in respect of undisclosed stock of Rs. 32,42,815/- ?" 2. The assessment year is 2005-06 and the corresponding accounting period is the previous year 2004-05. The assessee is assessed in the status of an individual. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for assessment year 2005-06 and framed assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 7.12.2010 making an addition on account of difference in value of closing stock as submitted before the revenue and before the Nutan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that there was difference of stock of Rs. 32,42,815/- which was not shown by the assessee in its return of income. It was, accordingly, submitted that the appeal requires consideration and deserves to be admitted on the question as proposed or as may be deemed fit by this court. 4. This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Commissioner. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) reveals that the Assessing Officer had made additions on account of unaccounted stock on the ground that the amount of stock disclosed to the bank was higher, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no discrepancy as far as the quantity is concerned. He further observed that there are various decisions in favour of the department in cases where the difference in quantity on the basis of stock statement given to the bank and as per books remained unexplained. However, in the facts of the present case there was no such difference. The Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance upon a decision of the jurisdictional High Court and found that all the decisions referred by the assessee in its submissions were on identical facts and the assessee's case was covered by the decision and accordingly, held that the addition of account of stock difference value (not quantity difference) made by the Assessing Officer cannot survive and, accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
