9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in allowing the valuation of closing stock as calculated by the assessee without considering the Accounting Standard-1 and decision in the case of DCIT vs. Samir Diamonds Exports Ltd. (71 ITR 75) through which the A.O. calculated the under valuation of closing stock at Rs.2,50,63,437/-. (b). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the estimated addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of defect for other kind of closing stock. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter the above grounds as may be deemed necessary. Relief claimed in appeal. The order of the CIT (A) to the above extent may be set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has accepted the same in earlier years and there is no change in the method of valuation. The method of valuation adopted by it was in consonance with the Income tax Act. It was further submitted that not only the valuation of inventories but the "cost of sales" has also been worked out accordingly. It was also pointed out that the A.O. has accepted the same method of valuation in the case of its sister concern, namely C.H. Jewellers (P) Ltd. The Ld. CIT (A) accepted the contentions of assessee and deleted the addition by holding as under:- "4.3.1 From a plain reading of the section it is seen that two things must be ensured - (a) that valuation is in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the year. The amount of Sales-tax /VAT embedded in the value of purchase and sale has also been reflected in the weighted average cost. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the rate of Rs.658.64 per gm applied by the assessee to the valuation of its closing stock of 22 ct. new ornaments was correctly determined. 4.3.3. It is also noteworthy that after elaborately dealing with the definition of weighted average cost, the A.O. has then proceeded to himself apply a simple average rate between the rate adopted by the assessee and rate of last purchase of ornaments. This rate of Rs.764/- per gram is also not the weighted average rate computed after considering all periodical transactions. Having rejected the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of closing stock, which approximates the value necessary to bring the said stock in its present location and condition. The Ld. D.,R. relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of British Paints India Ltd., vs. CIT (1978) 188 ITR 44 (SC) and the Tribunal decision in the case of DCIT vs. Samir Diamonds Exports Ltd. 71 ITD 75 (Mum.) 7. Ld. A.R. on the other hand submitted that the method of valuation of stock adopted by assessee was "weighted average cost" and not "simple average cost". The method has been consistently followed by the assessee and there is no change in the method. It was further submitted that the department has accepted the valuation method while completing its various assessments upto A.Y. 2005-06. The assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & Co. (ITA No.3362/Ahd/209). The Ld. A.R. thus urged that the order of CIT (A) be upheld. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on records. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has valued the stock at weighted average cost in the current year and the same method was followed by assessee in earlier years and it was accepted by the Department while finalizing the assessment u/s. 143(3). The assessee has also adopted the same method for arriving at the "cost of goods sold". The method of valuation is also in consonance with the I.T. Act and the Accounting Standards prescribed by ICAI. It is also an undisputed fact that the similar valuation method of stock has been accepted by the Department in case of C.H. Jewel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the A.O. has started to value the stock at close intervals of each month but finally that was not made the basis of addition. The A.O. has left that observation/calculation without drawing a conclusion however finalized the valuation on an add-hoc basis. Because of this peculiar situation we are not inclined to approve the said approach of assessment of the A.O. In view of the foregoing facts and in the circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.2,60,63,437/- made to closing stock. We accordingly upheld the action of CIT (A) and dismiss this ground of Revenue. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 31 -5- 2012. &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
