TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 476
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of Ld CIT(A) dated 31.8.2009. The revenue has taken the following grounds of appeals:- 1. The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by directing to delete addition of Rs..30,45,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of provision for diminution in the value of stock by ignoring that such provisions were unascertained liabilities and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ock was damaged and assessee had given the detail as per paper book page 1 & 2 relating to damaged stock only to Ld CIT(A) and Ld CIT(A) instead of agreeing with the submissions of assessee should have remanded back the case to the Assessing Officer. It was argued that before Ld CIT(A) no application for additional evidence was filed. Therefore, the Ld IT(A) has accepted the additional evidence wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zable value whichever is lower and the revenue has been accepting the policy being followed by assessee. Regarding contention of Ld DR that detail of inventory not was before Assessing Officer, he invited our attention to a copy of letter dated 4.12.2007 and invited our attention to point No.10 at page 3 and submitted that necessary details were submitted to Assessing Officer. Regarding valuation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing appellate proceedings. 5. The Ld DR in her rejoinder submitted that case laws relied upon by Ld AR were distinguishable. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer had made the addition in view of the fact that assessee had claimed an amount of Rs..30,45,000/- in the P&L A/c as provisio....