9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals immediately on 15-04-2010. There is no delay involved in these appeals. We have examined the record and found that even though the CIT(A) sent the orders by Regd. Post, by the acknowledgement of the Postal Department dated 16-02-2010, the orders were not served and returned to the Office of the CIT(A) as the address was not known. Therefore, till 16-02-2010, the orders were not served on the assessee. According to the assessee, the orders were collected on 08-04-2010 and the appeals were preferred on 15-04-2010. Looking at the above facts, we are of the opinion that the appeals were in time and, therefore, the Revenue's objection is rejected. ITA No.2987/Mum/2010: 3. In this appeal, the assessee is contesting two issues. Issue no. 1, on which grounds were raised, is with reference to addition of Rs.1,38,10,972/- made by the AO rejecting the claim of write off of opening stock of tyres and tubes. The facts leading to the above issue are that the assessee claimed loss of Rs.80,24,266/-. The AO noticed that the assessee had written off opening stock of Rs.1,38,10,972/-. It was the AO's contention that the assessee was asked to file a copy of agreement made with M/s. Monohill (U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of purchase way back in 2001 and further the assessee has not received any compensation or scrap value from any other person or organization and the entire stock was destroyed with the consent of Commercial Tax authorities who stated the facts in their orders. The CIT(A), however, affirmed the order of the AO on the same reason that the assessee did not comply with the directions of the AO for furnishing necessary details. In the course of the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee made an alternate claim that since the liability of purchase to the extent of Rs.59,41,605/- was written off and added in P& L account of the company, the write off to that extent at least should have been allowed. This alternate contention was also rejected by the CIT(A). Hence the assessee is aggrieved. 5. It was the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book, record and facts placed before the authorities that the assessee had imported tyres & tubes from UK and did business in their Tyres & Tubles Division in Bangalore, whereas the Mumbai Unit deals in distribution of films. In the course of the business in Karnataka, the assessee imported goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely charging in the sale bills. One of the directors of the company has represented to this office vide their letter dtd. 20- 03-2005 that due to heavy loss incurred by the company in its business, they have stopped the business activities from 6-3-2003 and have requested this office to cancel the RCs granted to them from the Department under KST, CST and IT Acts which have already been submitted to the Department. The CIT of this office who was directed to conduct enquiry into this closure petition has submitted to this office vide his report dtd; 28-5-2005 that the enquiry conducted by him into the closure petition of the company has confirmed the fact that due to heavy loss in the business activities carried out by the company, the company has closed down its business activities with effect from 6-3-2003 and has recommended for the cancellation of RC granted to the company under KST and CST Act. Further, on making enquiries with regard to stock of goods held by the company as its head office in Bangalore and with the consignment agents outside the State, the PAH submitted that tyres and tubes held in the closing stock of the company had all been damaged due to improper storag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see submits that they have imported the goods and the same could not sold in so many years and with the consent of Commercial Tax authorities destroyed the goods, the fact of which was accepted by the other authority. The books of account also represents the same situation. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee's claim is genuine and allowable. 8. We were also surprised that the ld. CIT(A) did not even consider the alternative plea raised by the assessee that the value to the extent of Rs.59,41,605/-, the liability payable to M/s.Monohill (UK), was not discharged as the said company accepted assessee's request and the assessee accordingly wrote back the liability in the books of account while claiming the loss of stock. When these aspects were clearly visible from the profit & loss account as well as from the submissions made by the assessee, the CIT(A)'s observation that there were no details to show that the assessee was under instructions by the foreign party to write off the liability is devoid of any merit. It is on record that assessee wrote back the amount in the profit & loss account and offered for taxation. We are not in a position to accept the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
