2017 (8) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red by the Department against order dated 19/11/2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- XXXIII, New Delhi and pertains to assessment year 2009-10. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are similar, they were heard together and for the sake of convenience they are being disposed of through this common order. 2. ITA No. 1677/DEL/2014 - The brief facts of the case are that the assessee deals in manufacturing and trading of diamonds and gold ornaments and jewellery. During assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee was enjoying hypothecation limit from the State Bank of India wherein the value of stock on 31st March 2009 had been reported at Rs. 93,522,340/- whereas the balance sheet sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by treating the difference in the value of stock as per the stock statement submitted to the bank and as per the assessee amounting to Rs. 73,48,078/-. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition on account of stock difference following the decision of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in assessment year 2007-08. On appeal by the Department before the ITAT, the ITAT allowed the Department's appeal. However the order was recalled under section 254 vide order dated 04/07/2016 in MA No. 37/DEL/2015 on the ground that the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of ACIT versus Kukra Chain and Jewellery Private Limited was not considered by the ITAT while passing the order in assessee's case. 2.02 The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in this app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....363 for the proposition that addition could not be made on account of difference in stock as per the statement given to the bank for enjoying overdraft facility and stock as per books of accounts. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has noted that the assessing officer could not point out any difference in quantity of stock as per the books of accounts vis-a-vis stock statement given to the bank. The assessee is said to be maintaining books of accounts on day to day basis and the purchase and sales were properly vouched. Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act provides books of accounts, regularly kept in the course of business are relevant wherever they refer to a matter into which the court has to inquire. Thus, entries made in the books of accounts main....