TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8, 09, 747/- made by the ld. A. O. on account of difference in valuation of closing stock. 3. The Appellant crave leaves to add, amend, alter, modify and or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to one another. The appellant prays this Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the additions made by the ld. A. O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee-company, engaged in the business of textuirsing of yarn filed its return of income on 20. 10. 2005 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Assessing officer (AO) finalised the assessment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rges. The assessee was accorded an opportunity to make submissions with regard to the AO's report. The assessee, as per letter dated 14. 12. 2007 submitted that the original TDS certificate was issued to the transporter which could not be produced before the AO, that he had verified the transportation charges at the time of assessment proceedings. After considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order he held that the proof of payment of TDS was not filed during the assessment proceedings, that the assessee had failed to explain any reason what prevented it from furnishing the evidences before the AO, that the assessee could not be allowed to rely upon the additional evidence produced for the first time during the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidences before the AO, but if FAA was of the opinion that Remand Report was required in this regard he should have directed the AO to make complete inquiries-either from the bank or from JTS. AO could have directed the assessee to file an affidavit if he was of opinion that a Xerox copy could not be accepted as an evidence. It is a known fact that original TDS certificate can never remain with the person who deducts Tax-he has to hand it over to the person who is entitled to claim credit of such deduction. In these circumstances, it was not proper to invoke provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, we are restoring back the matter to the file of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stock which was reflected in Schedule-E to the balance-sheet, that Schedule-E to the balance-sheet clearly mentioned the value of closing stock as on 31. 03. 2004 at Rs. 9, 89, 192/- which was the opening stock for the year under consideration and the difference between the value of closing stock and opening stock 4, 69, 423/- as shown in the Schedule-3 to the P & L Account, that Schedule-L to the balance-sheet contained quantitative details which showed that there was opening stock of text yarn at 10932 Kg. valued at Rs. 9, 46, 740/- and closing stock was shown at 23636 Kg. valued at Rs. 14, 13, 192/-, that the closing stock of POY and finished goods and finished goods was made at Rs. 59. 67 and Rs 60. 03 respectively. FAA called for a re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee under cover of its letter dated 28. 07. 2009, FAA held that the bill was with regard to purchase of POY and not finished goods, that the value of closing stock of the finished goods was to be taken at the cost of raw material as well as manufacturing cost as had been rightly done by the AO, it was not the case of the assessee that the rate of manufacturing cost determined at Rs. 5. 92 by the AO was not correct, that the AO had correctly adopted the rate of Rs. 98. 01 for the value of closing stock of finished goods, the assessee had not been able to furnish any basis for adopting the rate of Rs. 60. 03 for valuation of closing stock of finished goods. As a result, the determination of value of finished goods at Rs. 22, 22, 939/- and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was valued accordingly, that there was no basis for the AO to arrived @ Rs. 98. 01 per kg. for valuing the stock in question, that the closing stock was correctly valued by the assessee under the FIFO method, that the valuation made by the AO and consequent addition was unjustified and incorrect. Departmental Representative(DR)supported the order of the FAA. He further submitted that FAA had given findings after considering the reply of the assessee. 3. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had valued the closing stock of POY and finished goods at the rate of Rs. 59. 67 and Rs. 60. 03 respectively, whereas the AO has adopted the rate of Rs. 92. 09 and Rs. 98. 09 for the same ....