TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 1074
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order whereas it was submitted by learned A.R. of the assessee that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09 in I.T.A. No. 409/Lkw/2013 dated 29/11/2013. Learned A.R. of the assessee submitted a copy of the Tribunal order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision for assessment year 2008-09. 5. Learned D.R. of the Revenue could not point out any difference in facts and hence, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year. We decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A). Ground No. 1 of the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat opening stock of baggase has been shown at 4,400 quintals and after deducting sales of 5,107 quintals, closing stock of baggase remains at 3,262 quintals. The Assessing Officer has made addition on account of closing stock but he has not given any credit for opening stock, which was not valued by the assessee since the assessee is following this system of accounting that closing stock of baggase is not valued by it. It is true that the system adopted by the assessee is faulty and the assessee should have valued the closing stock year after year but since inception, the assessee is following this system and the same was accepted by the Department and therefore, to make any change in the system, we have to give effect in value of opening ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. This is by now a settled position of law that valuation of closing stock can be at cost or market price, whichever is lower. This fact has to be accepted that molasses stored in Kachcha pit is defective and is not comparable with the molasses stored in tanks. Hence, in our considered opinion, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified in the facts of the present case. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. This ground of Revenue is also rejected. 13. Ground No. 4 is as under: "4. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is erroneous in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,93,417/- on account of bond money payable." 14. Learned D.R. of the Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade on account of legal expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act 1961." 18. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order. He also drawn our attention to page No. 3 of the statements of facts filed by the Assessing Officer before us whereas learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of CIT(A). 19. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that payments were made by the assessee to two persons on account of legal expenses. The first person is Shri Raghvendra Singh, Advocate to whom payment of Rs. 25,575/- was made which included Rs. 18,500/- on account of his fees and Rs. 6,775/- on account of misc. expenses. The CIT(A) ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s below. This issue is decided by CIT(A) as per following para on page 8 of his order, which is reproduced below: "I have perused assessment order, gone through the submissions and also the paper book filed in appeal before me. It is seen that the copy of account of commission to sugar selling agents, vouchers and certificate of UP Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation for deduction of TDS on sale of sugar, details and challans for TDS deposit had been filed which stand at page no. 38 to 39 and 40 to 50 of the paper book. In view of the circumstances of the case, the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer is deleted." 25. From the above para of CIT(A), we find that a clear finding is given by CIT(A) that as per certificate of U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision in which the Tribunal has followed the judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manoj Kumar Singh [2012] 349 ITR 230. Respectfully following this Tribunal decision, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A). Ground No. 7 & 8 are rejected. 29. Ground No. 9 is as under: "9. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is erroneous in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,45,124/- on account of non refundable deposit." 30. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the assessment order. Learned A.R. of the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Siddheshwar Sahakari Sa....