9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... els. For the year under consideration, the stocks were valued at Rs. 16,64,320. Referring to the assessment order for the earlier assessment year, the Assessing Officer found that there was no evidence to show that the market value of the stock had gone down by Rs. 8,30,996 as claimed by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, no stock register was produced to show that the items purchased by the assessee, three to four years before, were still lying with the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 8,30,996 to the total income of the assessee. The matter was carried in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who took the view that the method of valuation of the closing stock (which is described in detail by us in our or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also the ground of appeal before the Commissioner, apart from the statement of facts. As stated above, the Department carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner allowing the appeal and ordering deletion. We have perused the grounds of appeal preferred by the Department. Ground No.1 stated that the Commissioner erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,30,996 on account of under valuation of the closing stock. Be that as it may, the matter ultimately came before the Tribunal and the appeal came to be disposed of in favour of the Department on September 10, 1998. It is interesting to note that the Tribunal, after quoting its own judgment for the earlier years, found that in this case, concerning assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich they had filed before the Commissioner in which the assessee has categorically challenged the finding of the Assessing Officer stating that no stock register was produced to show that the stocks were purchased a long time ago and they were still lying with the assessee. As stated above, while allowing the Department's appeal, the Tribunal has not gone into the validity of the method of accounting, but the appeal came to be allowed only on the ground that the above finding of the Assessing Officer has gone uncontroverted, whereas in fact, the appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner has categorically challenged that finding of the Assessing Officer as erroneous. This was one of the main arguments advanced before the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he validity of the method of valuation. He contended that in this case, the Assessing Officer had never called upon the assessee to produce the stock books/register/card. That, in this case, as stated above, the assessee has been following a particular method of valuation right from the assessment year 1965-66. That, the figures of the writing down of value were given by the assessee to the Assessing Officer, but the Assessing Officer never called upon the assessee to produce the supporting evidence. That, had the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to produce such evidence on ageing of a particular item of stock, then the assessee would have certainly produced the stock register. He submitted further that in this case, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference application before the Tribunal and, therefore, this court should not interfere under section 260A of the Income-tax Act as the said section warrants appeal to be filed on substantial grounds and if, in a given case, assuming without admitting there is a perverse finding, then the assessee has a remedy by way of reference or an appeal, as the case may be. He denies any perversity in this case in the said findings. He contended that in this case, the miscellaneous application drafted by the assessee was so wide that the assessee was virtually seeking retrial of the entire appeal and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the miscellaneous application. He, therefore, contended that this court should not interfere unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r two reasons. Firstly, the miscellaneous application, as filed before the Tribunal, is all pervasive. It raises numerous points apart from the incorrectness of the findings of the Tribunal on the above question. Secondly, under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, an appeal is entertainable only on substantial grounds. In this connection, as stated above, the assessee has already taken up the plea in the reference application before the Tribunal. However, the assessee contends that the Tribunal may not allow the assessee to raise this point on the ground that it is a factual finding. In the above circumstances, looking to the facts of this case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served if the assessee is allowed and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
