TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of assessment involved is 1973-74, for which the previous year ended November 5, 1972. The Income-tax Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee had claimed a sum of Rs. 94,232 under the head "stores account". The Income-tax Officer after scrutinizing the stores account found that a sum of Rs. 2,34,479 was debited under this head. As against this, the assessee had credited a sum of Rs. 35,624 as closing stock and Rs. 4,623 as sales of certain items of stores. The Income-tax Officer also found that under this head the assessee had made substantial claims for purchases of spare rolls and kali chaddar, for example, a sum of Rs. 38,120 had been debited on June 24, 1972 on account of purchase of spare rolls f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner was wrong in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,000. The assessee had furnished details of stores accounts before the Income-tax Officer. According to him, the amount had been spent on spare rolls, was of revenue nature and was an admissible expenditure. Out of purchases of kali chaddar amounting to Rs. 35,495 kali chaddar worth Rs. 35,624 had been shown in the closing stock. Thus, it was contended that the Income-tax Officer was wrong in adding a sum of Rs. 25,000 as capital expenditure. The departmental representative contended that the facts of this year are identical with the facts of the assessment year 1970-71. In that year the Tribunal sustained the addition of Rs. 25,000. In this year it is not the case of the assessee t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduce any convincing evidence either before the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner showing that unused stock was not of capital nature. From the admission of the assessee's counsel, it became clear that there was unconsumed stock and the same was not shown in the closing stock. Such stock was estimated by the Income-tax Officer as capital asset and in his opinion such expenditure of Rs. 25,000 was not allowable. It was not the case of the assessee before us that this expenditure was excessive. Looking to the aforesaid facts and the finding of the Tribunal in the assessment year 1970-71, the addition was quite reasonable and no interference was called for. After the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal the assessee fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal to review its order and in the absence of any such provisions the Tribunal was not justified in reviewing the order dated January 27, 1979. He referred to a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Laxmi Electronic Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 188 ITR 398, wherein this court has held that the Tribunal has no power to review. Its only power is one of rectification conferred by sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act. He also relied upon a decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273, wherein the apex court has held that the power to review is not an inherent power and it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implica....