TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d unless the books of account maintained by the assessee are specifically rejected by the AO by pointing out any specific or material defect – order of the CIT(A) set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. No. 4187/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2014 - Shri H. L. Karwa And P. M. Jagtap, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Ajay R. Singh For the Respondent : Shri Prakash L. Pathade ORDER Per P. M. Jagtap, A. M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) -7, Mumbai dated 26-03-2012 whereby he confirmed the addition of ₹ 1,67,659/- made by the A.O. on account of valuation of stock and also sustained the trading addition of ₹ 5,64,668/- made by the A.O. to the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng both the additions made by the A.O. on account of valuation of closing stock and on account of lower GP rate. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and the material available on record, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O. on account of valuation of stock. As regards the trading addition made by the A.O. by applying the higher GP rate, the ld. CIT(A) found the explanation offered by the assessee as regards the fall in GP rate to be partly acceptable. Accordingly, the trading addition of ₹ 5,69,668/- made by the A.O. was sustained by him to the extent of ₹ 3 lacs for the following reasons given in para 4.3 of his impugned order:- 4.3 I have considered the A.O. s order as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rofits Gains from Business or Profession in accordance with accounting system regularly employed by it; which is in consonance with section 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Hence, the addition on account of valuation of stock is contrary to the provisions of law. 2.1 Appellant submits that ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the additions of gross profits of ₹ 3,00,O00/- arbitrarily. Appellant therefore, prays that the additions of ₹ 3,00,000/- confirmed by CIT(A) be deleted. 2.2 Appellant submits that neither AO nor CIT(A) has found that explanation furnished by the appellant was wrong in respect of Gross Profit for relevant assessment year. Hence, additions of ₹ 3,00,000/- confirmed by CIT(A) is unjustified, unwarranted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
