2007 (9) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or bona fide and in consequentially sustaining an addition of Rs. 51,136/- to the total income? 2. Till the assessment year 1978-79, the Assessee was valuing its closing stock at "estimated realisable value" or at market value of the stocks. Even on 31st March, 1978, the Assessee had valued its closing stock at the market value. The opening stock was again valued on 1st April, 1978 at the market value. 3. The Assessee initially filed its return for the year ending 31st March, 1979 valuing the closing stock at the market value. Subsequently, the Assessee filed a revised return. The explanation given by the Assessee for filing the revised return has been set out in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals ['CIT(A)']. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Section 256(1) of the Act praying that the question of law set out above be referred to this Court for its opinion. That is how the matter is now before us. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the decisions that have been referred to above. 9. Section 139 (5) of the Act reads as follows: "139. Return of income. (1) to (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) If any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1), or in pursuance of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142, discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cision of Ram Luxman Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. Insofar as the decision in K.G. Khosla and Company Private Limited (supra) is concerned, this Court concluded that there was no question of law that had arisen because of the change in the method of valuation of the opening stock as well as the closing stock. Again, this was not a case concerning a revised return having been filed by the assessee. 13. Insofar as the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu Vs. Carborandum Universal Limited, [1984] 149 ITR 759 is concerned, that was a case where a revised return was filed, but the Madras High Court does not appear to have considered the effect of Section 139(5) of the Act. ....