9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hecation with the bank - HELD THAT:- Hon ble jurisdictional High Court [ 2017 (11) TMI 396 - DELHI HIGH COURT] AO in his order has only considered the closing stock of sugar as on 31.03.1999, as per the bank statement which is at 3,98,125 Qtls. and after comparing the same with that of the closing stock as on 31st March 1999 in the audited accounts i.e. 3,10,934 Otls. and gone on to add the difference in excess stock of 87,191 Qtls, as assessee's income for the year - when the AO has placed absolute reliance to the closing stock figures as per bank statement for making the above stated addition to income then he should have necessarily taken the figures of opening stock of sugar as well from the same source, namely the statement as on 31.03.1998 as furnished to the bank. This preposition is based on the principle of consistency in approach as it would be improper to place reliance on the book stock for opening balance and in the same breadth the bank statement for closing balance. Decided in favour of assessee. - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, For the Appellant : Shri KVSR Krishna, CA, Shri NK Garg, Adv. Shri Aman Goel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leging sales outside books is only on surmises and conjecture without any evidence and should be rejected. (c) Without prejudice, the appellant contends that the AO has erred in ignoring the fact that up to AY 2005-06, the assessing officer has already taxed value of stock aggregating to 1,65,442 bags as undisclosed stock allegedly not reflected in the books stating that cost of such production has been borne by payments outside the regular books of accounts. Having taxed as alleged value of stocks outside books the benefit of costs should be allowable to the assessee in this year. 4. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one and other. 5. The appellant may be allowed to add, amend and forgo any of the ground at the time of hearing. 2. In grounds no. 1 and 2, the assessee challenged the disallowance of interest expenses amounting to Rs. 85,86,000/-. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a resident corporate entity. For the Assessment Year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2006, declaring loss of Rs. 33,85,37,410/-. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on perusing the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee has submitted a copy of balance sheet of the company wherein the own fund shown by the assessee are far in excess of non-interest bearing advances given. The coordinate bench has considered this issue in assessee's own case in ITA No. 1033/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000, in detail and deleted the interest disallowance vide para No 6 as under- 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also considered the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. CIT A has deleted the addition holding that no interest-bearing finds have been directed towards interest free advances to the sister concerns It was further found that loans were obtained by assessee for specific purposes and which dily represented in the value of the stock The Id CIT further relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Reliance utilities and Power Ltd 313 ITR 340 has deleted the addition holding the assessee has enough own funds which are interest free and which are higher than the amount of advance to the sister concerns. The Ld. departmental represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perused the materials on record. It is observed that based on the alleged variation in stock declaration before the bank and the stock as per books of account; the Assessing Officer has made an addition in the assessment year 1999-2000. Based on such addition, the assessing officer has made the impugned addition in the current assessment year. Pertinently, while deciding the issue relating to alleged variance in stock position in assessment year 1999-2000, Ld. First Appellate Authority has deleted the addition, which was upheld by the Tribunal. While deciding revenue s appeal, the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the ITA No. 895/Del/2017 vide order dated 27.10.2017 has held as under: 6. We notice that the findings of the CIT are based upon an appraisal of not merely the Bank stock statement but also RG-I Registers and Form 3CB duly audited by the Company's auditors, and accepted by the Excise Department. The relevant extract of the CIT's order is as follows: In view of the above primary records maintained by the appellant which are verified by the Central Excise authorities and which have not been found to be untrue or incorrect by the Assessing Officer, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
