2012 (7) TMI 957
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent : Dr. S.Moharana, CIT DR O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A)-IX, Chennai dated 22.02.2012. 2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading in iron & steel goods. For the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee filed return of its income on 29.9.2008 declaring total income of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal impugning the order of the CIT(A) dated 22.2.2012. The grounds raised before the Tribunal are with regard to the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of under-valuation of closing stock of Rs. 4,78,53,941/- as well as levy of interest under section 234B on the additions made in the income. 3. Shri Banusekar,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the Assessing Officer only asked for documents relating to the physical quantity of the closing stock. The Assessing Officer had never asked for valuation of the closing stock and the defective stock. He further contended that value of the defective stock is always less than the market value. The Assessing Officer never asked for the details of the defective stock. The Assessing Officer calcula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order as well as order of the CIT(A). A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) shows that the CIT(A) has not taken into consideration the fact that the assessee is maintaining a godown wherein it is difficult to demarcate the old and new stock of iron bars and steel rolls. The sale of iron and steel rolls has to be made on the basis of the convenience of the removal of physical stock. Items whi....
TaxTMI