TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice u/s 142(1) r.w.s.s 153A for Asstt.Year 2014-15 was beyond legislative powers of the AO and therefore, entire proceedings based on this illegal notice being void the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1) deserves annulment. 2. That without prejudice to GOA 1 above (i) The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 5,39,033/- on 13-08-2013 (date of search) ignoring explanation of the assessee before the AO that it is supported by Software Tally since Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2014-15 (date of search) as well as purchase bills; and (ii) The ld. CIT(A) fur9rther erred in not appreciating this fact that stock sheets were prepared by search team not before partners of firm but in presence of employees of firm who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the instant A.Yr. being search assessment year (date of search being 13-08-2013), it does not cause any prejudice to the appellant. Further, admittedly no dispute, legal or procedural, is raised by the appellant either before the AO or before me regarding completion of assessment u/s 143(3). I may point out AO has issued notice u/s 143(2) before completion of assessment. Merely issue of notice u/s 153A and mentioning of same in the top header of assessment order does not vitiate the entire order. On the facts and in the circumstances of the, in my view the legal objection raised by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. Appellant's appeal in Ground No. 1 is dismissed 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee praye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sharma vs DCIT, Circle 9(1) (ITA No.3141/DEL/09 dated 12.04.2010) have quashed assessment order. We may add that decision of Hon'ble Chandigarh Bench (supra) does answer doubts raised by Hon'ble CIT(A) also. We therefore submit assessment order be quashed. '' 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is not imperative to repeat the facts and circumstances of the case as the ld. CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue in his order. However, it is noted that on the similar issue the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Rajeev Kuamr vs ACIT (2017) 186 TTJ 522 relying on decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur with the submissions of the assessee. Thus Ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 2 (i and ii) of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ''6. With reference to Ground No. 2, it is see that during the course of assessment proceeding, at the business premises of the concern of appellant M/s. Mundra & Jain Marbles, inventory of the stock was prepared and the position of stock was worked out herein as under:- Total Stock as per inventory prepared Rs. 41,13,947/- Stock as per books Rs. 35,74,974/- Excess stock Rs. 5,39,033/- The appellant was required to explain the excess stock found amounting to Rs. 5,39,033/-. After examining the reply of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ared by the Department is genuine, the same could be arrived after adopting GP Rate of around 29% consistently declared by the assessee, this means the stock at the time of preparation of the inventories is of Rs. 46,56,050/- [36,09,341+10,46,709(36,09,341x29%)] on sale price basis. Thus the contention of the appellant that the inventories prepared by the Department is on sale price is not have any truth. (iii) Further the details of stock / inventories furnished by the appellant is in a summary manner whereas the inventories prepared by the department is in detailed manner I find that AO has factually rebutted the submission made for the excess stock found. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in my view fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in UCO Bank vs CIT (1999) 156 CTR 380 - a method of accounting adopted by the taxpayer consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the Departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted a different method of keeping accounts or of valuation. (v) In view of aforesaid facts and decision of Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) as same method of valuation of inventory is followed consistently since inception of firm we submit the same be not interfered and addition of Rs. 539033/- be deleted. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 3.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a partnership firm an....