9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounted for in the particular year, the loss due to fall in value of stocks represented by those purchases has to be allowed even when the method of accounting adopted by the assessee company for A.Y. 2009-10 was not accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the Company, as enunciated in the provisions of section 145A of the Act"? 2. We have heard Mr.K.V.Arvind, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue. 3. We may record that the Tribunal while dealing with the contention of the assessee and the appellant -Revenue on the aforesaid aspect, has observed at Paragraph Nos.9 and 10 as under:- "9. A lot of emphasis has been placed by the Assessing Officer on the question as to whether the inclusion of iron ore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are unable to see any legally sustainable merits in the objections raised by the assessee. 10. Learned CIT(A) has, in her impugned order, raised doubts about genuineness of the purchases itself by questioning the reversal of entries in the subsequent year. We cannot, at this stage, sit in judgment over correctness of or impact of the accounting entries in the subsequent years. On the contrary, when assessee has offered this amount of Rs. 29.50 crores to tax in subsequent year, for whatever reasons other than incorrectness of this fall in value of stock, this addition amounts to double addition of income. All that is material for us is whether the fall in value of stock to the tune of Rs. 29.50 crores should have been allowed as a deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has offered its amount of Rs. 29.50 Crores to tax in subsequent year, for whatever reason, other than incorrectness of this fall in value of stock, this addition amounts to double addition of income and ultimately, the Tribunal found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer for deletion of the entry and its confirmation thereof, by CIT(Appeal), deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant - Revenue has made a two fold submission. One is regarding the correct accounting procedure not followed by the assessee. He submitted that in the earlier year, prior to the assessment year in question, the goods were not shown as stock in trade, but in the account the same was treated as loans and advances. In the subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rice is permissible. On the contrary, if the appellants' contention is accepted, then in the succeeding year when it is offered to tax for the amount of Rs. 29.50 Crores and the deduction is made impermissible, it would result into double taxation. 7. On the second aspect, it is not a case of the revenue that with a view to avoid real tax, the book entries were shown lowering down the value of the stock. On the contrary, it is on account of the objection raised by C.A.G., that the assessee has correctly valued the stock on trade at the market price, prevailing then. The case of manipulation f or avoiding the payment of tax stands on a different footing, but the same has not been pleaded before the Tribunal in the instant case. The decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
