9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 18.4.2011 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08. The only dispute raised in this appeal is regarding valuation of closing stock. 2. The facts in brief are that the AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee had valued stock costing ₹ 18.00 lacs at ₹ 1,06,800/-. The AO therefore asked the assessee to expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that the stock has to be valued at cost price or market price whichever was lower and net realizable value adopted by the assessee was not permitted. The AO, therefore, rejected the valuation made and added the difference to the closing stock which came to ₹ 16,93,200/- (wrongly mentioned in the assessment order as ₹ 24,52,035/-). 2.1 The assessee disputed the decision of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved that since unsold stocks were also lying for more than 5 years and had become obsolete, the assessee was justified in adopting net realizable value at much lower figure based on experience in business and principle of conservatism. CIT(A), therefore, deleted the addition made by AO aggrieved by which, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed reliance in the findings given in the assessment order. 4. We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding addition made on account of valuation of closing stock. The assessee was dealing in locks. For the relevant year, the assessee had valued locks costing ₹ 18.00 lacs at ₹ 1,06,800/-. The case of the assessee is that the locks wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uite reasonable as in the return for the immediate succeeding year, the value of the same stock has been shown by the assessee at nil which remains accepted as there is no addition made by the department to the returned income filed in the next year. In view of this position, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO and the same, is, therefore, uphel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
