9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Addition to credit n capital account - Held that:- The assessee has filed the confirmation of M/s Good Faith Cement Pvt. Ltd. at page 12 of the Paper Book alongwith the copy of the cheque issued by the said authority and the bank statement in which such cheque had been deposited. The explanation of the assessee was not accepted as the letter issued by the Assessing Officer under section 133 (6) of the Act was received back undelivered. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and following the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to redecide the same denovo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee has to discharge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored. 4. The assessee has raised following ground in the Cross Objections : 1. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of ₹ 1,50,000/- applying the provisions of section 68 which are not applicable in the instant case and as such the addition upheld is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. The only issue raised in the appeal filed by the revenue is against the deletion of addition of ₹ 58,28,392/- made on account of valuation of closing stock. 6. The ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that similar issue arose before the Tribunal in assessee's own case relating to assessment year 2007-08 and the method of valuation of closing stock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stock is following LIFO method which is one of the prescribed method of accounting standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for valuation of inventory. The said method of valuing the closing stock of gold ornaments has been consistently followed by the assessee from year to year. Similar method was followed by the assessee in assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer in assessment year 2007-08 had made an addition of ₹ 32,08,977/- on account of valuation of closing stock of gold ornaments. The Tribunal in ITA No. 1378/Chd/2010 relating to assessment year 2007-08 in DCIT Vs Shri Kuldeep Chand Jain, HUF, vide order dated 24.4.2012, had held as under : 4. We have carefully perused the rival submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder : 5.2 I have carefully considered the submission filed by the appellant, it was informed that the AO has accepted the calculation error in the closing stock valuation and has rectified the same by passing order u/s 154 dated 30.06.2010 vide which the difference in stock stand reduced from ₹ 32,08,977/- to seen that during the A.Y. 2003-04, 20Q5-06 and 2006-07 assessment for which was completed u/s 143(3), the method of Valuation of closing stock has been accepted by the AO including by the AO who has passed the assessment order for the year under appeal. Therefore, the AO cannot reject the method of valuation of closing stock which is consistently' followed by the appellant and has also been accepted by the AO in the past ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO having not questioned the same and in fact having accepted it in the previous assessment years, it is held that the method of valuation of closing stock could not be rejected. Therefore, the addition made by the AO which by her order of rectification u/s 154 stands reduced to ₹ 19,45,073/- on account of difference in valuation of closing stock is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 6. A bare perusal of the findings of CIT(A) reveals that on the basis of the doctrine of consistency in relation to method of valuation of inventory as also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case, she recorded findings in favour of the assessee. Having regard to the fact-situation of the case, decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er rejecting the explanation of the assessee and in the absence of the assessee having discharged its onus made an addition of ₹ 1,50,000/-.. 13. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the said addition of ₹ 1,50,000/-. 14. The ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that the sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- was advanced to M/s Good Faith Cement Pvt. Ltd. in cash on 07.09.2006 and the same was returned vide cheque on 05.12.2008 and the same was deposited in the bank account of the assessee, which is apparent from the bank statement. The ld. AR for the assessee stressed that sufficient opportunity was not granted to the assessee to furnish further information in this regard. 15. The ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the authorities below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
