TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age considering the age of the stock. However, this method of reduction is not following year by year. For example, as seen from the above table, in the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee adopted the reduction of value of purchase price at 25%, when the stock is one year old. However, for the assessment year 2008-09, it was 50%, for the assessment year 2007-08 again 25% and for the assessment year 2006-07, the same was 50%. There is no explanation for such kind of arbitrary reduction of either 25% or 50%. There is no consistency in the method followed by the assessee for valuing the closing stock. The closing stock is to be valued at market price or cost whichever is less and that should be consistent from year to year. The assessee is not disputed that it has been followed the same method. However, consequent to search action, the assessee wanted to change the method of stock valuation for the first time, which is nothing but an after-thought so as to reduce the income which cannot be permitted at this point of time. Accordingly, this ground in all these appeals is rejected." 3. According to the ld. AR, the assessee is valuing the closing stock on the basis of net realisable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew unless such power is expressly conferred. There was no express power of review conferred on the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review did not extent to rehearing a case on the merits. Neither by invoking inherent power nor the principle of mistake of court not prejudicing a litigant nor by involving doctrine of incidental power, could the Tribunal reverse a decision on the merits. The Tribunal was not justified in recalling its previous finding restoring the addition, more so when an application for the same relief had been earlier dismissed." 7. The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. The same is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. We shall first deal with the question of the power of the Tribunal to recall an order in its entirety. Recalling the entire order obviously would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. The order passed by the Tribunal under section 254(1) is the effective order so far as the appeal is concerned. Any order passed under section 254(2) either allowing the amendment or refusing to amend gets merged with the original order passed. The order as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese Misc. Applications. 10. The next grievance of the assessee in MA Nos. 240, 244 and 248/Mds/2015 is with regard to confirming the addition towards stock discrepancies. 11. The Tribunal considered this issue in para 18 of its order, which reads as follows : "18. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. It is seen from the records that there was difference between physical closing stock and books of accounts. The Managing partner, Shri Shiva Kumar admitted that there was deficit stock of Rs. 1,27,64,281/- as a whole. He further admitted that there was an error in valuation of stock in their system for some products and offered the difference in stock value for taxation as income in the financial year relevant to the assessment year. The assessee admitted the difference in stock value at the time of search action on 17.2.2009 in Chennai and Tirunelveli. It is also brought on record by the AO that Shri Ponanand in his statement on 19.2.2009 admitted the excess stock found as compared to the stock as per books of account on the date of search which stood at Rs. 1,96,21,842/- and in answer to question No.10, he stated that there are duplicate entrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as on 31/03/2009". According to the ld. AR, it is apparent from the above that AO did not have the full particulars of inventory available on the date of search. It is the contention of the Assessee that individual items are identifiable by the by-numbers allotted at the time of purchase. The entire stock records have been computerised and the history of each time from purchase to sale is immediately available. Hence, he submitted that if the particulars of the stock taken at the time of search are furnished, the same could be easily verified. Further, the ld. AR submitted that the purchases after the search day, sales and closing stock at the end of the year has been accepted by the department. As the figures of Purchases, sales and value closing stock after search has been accepted as returned by the assessee, there cannot be addition to closing day stock. 12.1 The ld. AR, further, submitted that having accepted that they do not have the particulars of the search day stock, there can be no addition on that count. According to the ld. AR, the Tribunal has not appreciated the confirmation by the AO that they do not have particulars of search day stock taken by the department.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the ITAT the following important aspect to the transaction viz. "above landed properties were acquired with the explicit understanding that the commercial exploitation of the above properties will be enjoyed by the Rm.KV.group of concerns and neither Sri K Mahesh nor the other co-owners had envisaged any business interest of their own at any point in the same. In essence, the entire transaction was conceived only to benefit the "RmKV group" of business concerns." (para No.1 of the Statement of facts made to CIT (Appeals)." According to the ld. AR, the same facts were reiterated before the Tribunal also (as per para 3.5 to 3.9 of the Grounds of Appeal) and the above reason for paying the charges for obtaining the right to use the land has not been appreciated by the Tribunal. Without prejudice to the above submissions, the assessee has acquired commercial right which is entitled to depreciation. Hence, he prayed that the order of the Tribunal may be recalled to consider the above facts submitted before the authorities. 17. The ld. DR relied on the order of the Tribunal. 18. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. On this issue also, the Tri....