TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Assessee firm is has adopted the valuation of inventory on average cost method / weighted cost which is a scientific method approved by ICAI in AS-2-Accounting Standard-2 –Valuation of Inventories. The assessee has also filed the copy of inventory of stock taken by search team containing pages 18 to 26 assessee's paper book. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and also the decision in the case of UCO Bank vs CIT[1999 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] it is noted that there is merit in the submission of the assessee and we concur with the same - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 432/JP/2018 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2018 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM For The Assessee : Shri C.M. Birla, CA For The Revenue : Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT - DR ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM The appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 1-02-2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 prayed for quashing of the assessment order for which the ld.AR of the assessee filed the following written submission. Before we proceed further we submit sec.153A has been amended by the Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017. Because of amendment in section 153A(1)(a), 153A(1)(b), its three provisos, section 153B and 153C after six assessment years - and for the relevant assessment year or years - is inserted. We however submit this amendmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been framed for the 6 Assessment Years which precedes the assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, we are of the confirmed view that the assessment under section 153A of the Act could have been framed from the Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2006- 07 only and not for the Assessment Year 2007-08. As the assessment for the Assessment Year under consideration was framed by the AO under section 153A of the Act, therefore, this assessment was not valid in the eyes of law and of initio. Thus the same is quashed. Since we have quashed the assessment order under consideration considering the same as invalid, no findings are given on other grounds raised by the assessee. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Rajeev Kumar vs ACIT (supra), it is noted that the legal objection raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) has merit and we concur 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 findings of the AO does not require any interference. The Ground raised is dismissed. 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,39,033/- and the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating this fact that stock sheets were prepared by search tem not before the partners of the firm but in presence of employees of firm as they were not aware of the purchase cost. To this effect, the ld.AR of the assessee filed the following written submission. (i) Our s is a partnership firm wherein 2 families are involved. (ii) We are dealing in marble and granite. In this business there is every possibility of time gap of 4-5 years and even more in purchase and sale of a part of stock. (iii) There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
