AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 & 10/09/2014 respectively in the matter of assessment orders passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The assessee has also field Cross Objection No.195/Ahd/2012 relevant to AY 2009-10 as captioned above. 2. Both the appeals and cross objection are disposed of by this common order. 3. In the Revenue's appeals, the common ground agitated by the Assessing Officer (AO) is towards deletion of addition in respect of under valuation of closing stock made by the AO. 4. The facts being common, we shall briefly narrate the facts concerning AY 2009-10. 5. Briefly stated, the AO in the course of scrutiny assessment observed that the assessee has not included the value of statutory duty/lev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) order dated 24/05/2016 is reproduced hereunder:- "1. Ground no. 4 relates to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 51,59,563/- made u/s. 145A of the Act on account of CENVAT paid on raw material. 1. On perusal of the trading and Profit and Loss account of the assessee, the A.O noticed that while valuing the closing stock as on 31.03.2008, the assessee has not included a sum of Rs. 51,59,563/- being the CENVAT paid on the raw material lying in the closing stock . The assessee was asked to explain why the same should not be added to the value of the closing stock in view of the provisions of Section 145A of the Act. Assessee filed a detailed reply explaining that it is maintaining exclusive system of accounting in so far a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). I have also perused the other case laws relied upon by the appellant and ratios of these case laws also support the case of the appellant. (2) The A.O. has not commented on the accounting policies followed by the appellant. The policy of valuation of closing stock consistently followed by the appellant in the previous years as well as in the succeeding years. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Voltamp Transformers Ltd. v/s. CIT (2008) reported on 217 CTR 254 has held that A.O. has got very limited powers to change valuation of closing stock. The A.O. cannot change method of accounting regularly followed by the assessee without valid reasons. (3) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ground no. 4 is accordingly dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed." 10. Having regard to the aforesaid view of the Coordinate Bench already taken in assessee's own case, we decline to interfere with the order of CIT(A). 11. In the result, Revenue's appeals in ITA No.1717/Ahd/2012 for AY 2009-10 & ITA No.3392/Ahd/2014 for Ay 2010-11 are dismissed. 12. Now we shall turn to Assessee's Cross Objection in CO No.195/Ahd/2012 (in Revenue's ITA No.1717/Ahd/2012) relevant to AY 2009-10. 13. The grounds of Cross Objection raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. The ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 83,926/- made by the AO u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x authorities are under duty to ensure that no tax which is not legitimately due from the assessee gets collected owing to mistake on the part of the assessee. The Revenue is under duty and obligation to act in a fair and non-partisan manner. The power available to the AO cannot be exercised in the manner which is most beneficial to the Revenue and consequently most adverse to the assessee by taking advantage of the ignorance or mistake on the part of the assessee. The assessee having not claimed the depreciation eligible to it under law, will not operate as estoppel when relevant facts are available on record. In the circumstances, we do not subscribe to the dismissal of the claim of depreciation allowances stated to eligible to the assess....