9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for making an addition on account of difference in stock for sustaining the same for ₹ 10,66,350/-. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 120/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2020 - Shri R. K. Panda, Accountant Member And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sh. Shailesh Gupta Sh. Madhur Agrawal, Advs. For the Respondent : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, CIT(DR) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 17/11/2014 passed by CIT (A)-1 New Delhi for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is arbitrary, against law and facts on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the closing stock of finished goods as per the stock of the company was ₹ 11,46,15,410/-. However, at the time of physical verification of stock during the search, it was found that ₹ 10,21,21,080/- for which the assessee has given explanation that the stock lying at outside factory premises and cold storage was not taken into account at the time of physical verification by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that before the Assessing Officer re-conciliation of stock found with stock as per stock register was produced. The amount of stock in the books of accounts is more by ₹ 1,46,15,410/-. As such the company has shown more profit in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer. There was no denial by the Assessing Officer that stock was lying outside factory premises and cold storages. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any defect in the reconciled stock. The CIT(A) has also not taken the cognizance of proper GP rate applied by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has not considered the actual material in consonance with the physical stock. The assessee had justified its difference through the documents which was at no point of time doubted by any of the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, CIT(A) was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer for making an addition on account of difference in stock for sustaining the same for ₹ 10,66,350/-. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
