2025 (7) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner/Assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of CTD bars, Rounds, M.S. Ingots etc. During the assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer has passed an order under Section 143 (3) of the Act 1961 on 31.12.2011 and assessed loss of Rs. 3,49,46,476/- though the Assessee company has filed return showing total loss of Rs. 4,09,13,490/-. During the course of verification of books of accounts and records, it was noticed that there has been survey operation conducted by the Central Excise Authority on 22.10.2008, wherein it was found that there was shortage of closing stock of finished go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise Authority found that the valuation of the stock at Rs.57,41,353/- has not been mentioned in the books of account of the petitioner. So the Assessing Officer has added the said income and the petitioner has also admitted the same before the Excise Authority. So the petitioner Company has not mentioned the difference of stock of Rs.57,41,353/- in their books of accounts. Further, in spite of issuance of notice by the Department of the Assessment proceedings the petitioner failed to offer any satisfactory explanation. The petitioner has also not preferred any appeal against the assessment order and only preferred revision petition under Section 264 the Act 7. Further, while dismissing the revision, the Revisional Auth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of 2014 and praying that the alleged shortage is not assessable as the appellant's income, but only the gross profit on alleged sales if any may be treated as the appellant's income. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the learned Single judge is bad in law and the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the order passed by the CIT suffers from perversity and illegality. He further submits that the scope of writ petition against the revision order is even larger because there is no other alternative remedy. He further relies upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hapag Lloyd India (P) Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 139 Taxmann.com 128 (Bombay). By placing re....