TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nprecedented cyclone HudHud, which resulted dislocation of communication w.e.f. 11.10.2014, due to which the assessee could not consult the advocate for presentation of appeal before the ITAT within the time allowed under the Act. The A.R. further submitted that the assessee has filed his appeal immediately after restoration of communication by the concerned authorities in consultation with his advocate, therefore, there is a reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal within the time allowed under the Act and accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The Ld. D.R. did not raise any objection for condonation of delay. Having heard both the sides and considered materials on record, we find that the assessee has filed an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ock statement furnished to the bankers and submitted that there is no difference in quantity of stock submitted to the bankers, but there is a difference in value of stock, which resulted in difference in stock between books of accounts and stock statement submitted to the bank. 4. The A.O. after considering the submissions of the assessee held that though there is no difference in quantity of stock, there is a difference in value of stock shown in the books of accounts and stock statement submitted to the bankers. The assessee has failed to offer any explanations for showing different stock position in the books of accounts and to the stock statement submitted to the bankers, accordingly, made additions of Rs. 77,70,392/- to the total inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the explanations of the assessee, held that there was no quantitative difference in quantum of stocks admitted in the books of accounts and as to what was declared to the bank in respect of stock of raw materials and finished goods. However, there is a quantitative difference in respect of stock in process. The quantity of stock in process declared in the statement to the bank was 222 tonnes, whereas the stock shown in the books of accounts was 122 tonnes. The assessee argued that the quantitative difference was only due to arithmetic mistake, but such claim was not demonstrated before me. The CIT(A) further observed that on perusal of the financial statement filed and the stock statement on 31.3.2008, 31.3.2009 & 31.3.2010, it is seen tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shown in the books of accounts and the difference pointed out by the CIT(A) in respect of stock in process is only an arithmetic mistake and also fact that the value of stock in process is always taken on estimation basis. It was further submitted that the assessee is not getting any benefit by showing excess stock to the bankers, which is proved by the fact that the assessee has not got any excess drawing power from submitting more stock to the bankers. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. strongly supported the order of CIT(A). 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. made additions towards difference in value of stock as per books of accounts a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id mistake is an arithmetic error. We find merits in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that the value of stock submitted to the bank cannot be taken to be the exact value of the stock. This is the usual practice adopted by the businessmen by inflating the stock of the assets in order to avail better financial help from the banks. The A.O. has not mentioned or observed any deviation from accounting principles adopted by the assessee for valuation of closing stock. He had also not found any defects in the books of accounts of the assessee or any bogus purchases and sales to come to the conclusion that the books of accounts along with stock registers maintained by the assessee are incorrect. Ultimately, he reached the conclusion tha....