9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue fails. - Decided in favour of assessee - T. C. A. No. 910 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2016 - M. Jaichandren And S. Vimala, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. M. Swaminathan Asst. by Mr. K. Suresh Kumar For the Respondent : Mr. T. N. Seetharaman JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. Vimala, J. ) The Assessee is the proprietor of M/s.Shah Sanitary Stores, Chennai. For the impugned Assessment Year (2002-2003), the Assessing Officer completed the 'scrutinity' assessment, by order dated 30.12.2009. During the course of scrutinity, the Assessing Officer found that the declared stock before the Bank (for availing cash credit facility) was ₹ 7,23,98,153/- and that it did not match with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l questions of law: (i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards difference in closing stock? (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the stock valuation accepted by the Sales Tax Authority is binding on the income tax authorities? 5. It is the case of the revenue that the stock statement furnished by the assessee to the Bank, at the time of availing loan facility, must be accepted as correct and that the assessee cannot be permitted to go back on the stock statement as it would amount to recognizing ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities have verified the assessee's stock in relation to the position as at the close of the year. Under such circumstances, as expounded by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. N.Swamy 241 ITR 363, the burden was upon Revenue to prove that the stock submitted to the Revenue authorities was erroneous. This burden could not be discharged by merely referring to the statement of the assessee to third parties. Under the circumstances and respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the orders of authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 5.4. In the said decision, it has been pointed out the authorities did not find any mistake or omission in the books of account of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g tax do not accept the valuation by the other branch of the officials collecting tax, then there is no sanctity to the statutory functioning of which there is a presumption attached to the genuiness. Therefore, the contention that the valuation made by the Sales Tax Authorities would not be accepted by the Income Tax Authorities does not stand to reason. 6. It is the case of the Assessee that the closing stock declared by the Assessee and accepted by the Commercial Tax Department has been rightly accepted by the Income Tax Department (the Assessing Officer) and therefore, the confirmation of the same by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has to be upheld. 7. The learned counsel for the Assessee has brought to the notice of this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
