9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the appellant or the provisions of law and further erred in passing the order, which is bad in law and on facts. 2.1 The Lower Authorities has erred in making the addition of Rs. 3,64,195/- and has further erred in not appreciating the WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD adopted for valuing of Closing Stock by the appellant. 2.2 The Lower Authorities has erred in not appreciating that the appellant has been valuing the Closing Stock at WEIGHTED AVERAGE METHOD and following this method consistently in the preceding and succeeding years and has further erred in making the impugned addition without pointing out any defect in the method of valuation of Closing Stock consistently followed by the appellant. 2.3 The Lower Authorities has erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the Ld AR and have gone through the assessment order. It is observed that the appellant company has valued its closing stock by adopting weighted average method. The submission made by the Ld AR is same as made before the AO. The AO while making the addition has made the following observation in Para 6 of her assessment order. "I have considered the reply of assessee. In his reply, the assessee has submitted that he is adopting weight average method. As mentioned above, Sh. H.K. Batra C.A. and authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is adopting FIFO method, vide order sheet entry dated 23.12.2011. Therefore, the submission of the assessee is itself contradictory on the issue in question. In this way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andard 2 of the ICAI prescribes FIFO method to be employed to evaluate the correct value of stock. This accounting standard is being followed as general practise. In my opinion, the AO has rightly worked out the valuation of closing stock on the FIFO method basis in Para 3(b) of the assessment order at Rs. 1,21,06,107/- by deriving figures from the books of accounts of the appellant company. The Ld AR has not brought any material on record to dispute the aforesaid valuation of closing stock made by the AO. Therefore, in my opinion, the AO has rightly added the difference in the value of closing stock of Rs. 13,64,195 (Rs. 1,21,06,1071 - Rs. 1,07,41,912) and the impugned addition is hereby confirmed." 3. Before us, the learned counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
