TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1051
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the assessment year 1998-99, claiming the following substantial questions of law : "A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified on facts and in law in reversing the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thereby sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs. 8,52,513 by not allowing the appellant to exercise the right granted to him by section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for revising of the Income-tax return to which he is legally entitled ? B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified on facts and in law in reversing the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and thereby ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return, the valuation of the closing stock which included the value of rice, rice bran, husk and bardana was shown at Rs. 1,99,20,808.75 which was revised to Rs. 1,99,48,886 by omitting the stock of mustard seeds and damaged arhar by showing certain discrepancies due to inadvertent mistake committed by the accountant. According to the assessee, the method of valuation of closing stock regularly being followed by it was to value the raw material at their cost price whereas the finished goods and other bye-products were to be taken at their realizable value which is discernible from the remarks of the auditor given on Form 3CB and 2CD of the tax audit report (annexure A4) for the year ending March 31, 1997 to March 31, 1999. The Assessing Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Keiser-E-Hind Mills Co. Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 486 (Guj) ; Dr. K. P. Srivastava v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 299 (All) and Jayshree Tea and Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 193 (Cal) in support of his contentions. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue supported the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The original return was filed on October 28, 1998 declaring the income at Rs. 86,080 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 1,14,162 on February 3, 2000. In the original return, the valuation of the closing stock was shown at Rs. 1,99,20,808.75 which was revised to Rs. 1,99,48,886. The closing stock included rice, rice bran, phak, husk and bardana and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....For rice bran, the value of rice was worked at Rs. 328 per quintal which was revised to Rs. 280 per quintal whereas during the relevant financial year, it was at the rate of Rs. 295 per quintal. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus : "We have not found any mistake in such a conclusion of the Assessing Officer which is based on sale instances and not hypothetical. What was the basis of wrong valuation has not been adduced before us by the assessee. This is an undisputed fact that the assessee himself adopted the value at Rs. 1050. What prompted the assessee to revalue the same at the rate of Rs. 950 has not been explained before us. Undisputedly, the original return was duly signed by the partner of the assessee firm. T....