TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lected in the order of the Assessing Officer would not govern the field, where the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had rendered a finding of fact that direct expenses on account of freight charges, etc. incurred on the closing stock had been added to arrive at valuation of closing stock and are also duly supported by material receipt vouchers. In view of the fact that two authorities have reached a concurrent finding of fact on examination of material receipt vouchers, we see no substantial question of law arising for our consideration - Decided against revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1574 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And G. S. Kulkarni, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr A R Malhotra a/w N A Kazi, Advs For the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 4. Mr. Malhotra, the learned Counsel for the revenue points out that the impugned order of the Tribunal follows it's order dated 13 January 2011 passed for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Mr. Malhotra also informs us that though an appeal was filed by the revenue from the order dated 13 January 2011 of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2007-08 it was dismissed on 29 November 2012 for failure to remove office objections. The revenue has now taken out a Notice of Motion No. 1757/2015 on 6 July 2015 seeking condonation of delay and restoration of it's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08. Mr. Malhotra submits that the Question (b) herein could be considered for admission by the Court today, as the relevant portion of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;s own case. In view of the above, the appeal of the respondentassessee was allowed by order dated 23 September 2011 of the CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved, the revenue carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue by placing reliance upon it's order dated 13 January 2011 passed in respect of the Assessment Year 200708. The relevant portion of the order dated 13 January 2011 has been quoted verbitam in the impugned order, wherein the CIT(A) had held that the valuation of closing stock was inclusive of expenses incurred to bring it to its location and condition on the date of valuation. It also relies upon the orders passed in the earlier assessment years, in favour o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht charges, etc. incurred on the closing stock had been added to arrive at valuation of closing stock and are also duly supported by material receipt vouchers. In view of the fact that two authorities have reached a concurrent finding of fact on examination of material receipt vouchers, we see no substantial question of law arising for our consideration so far as Question (b) is concerned. Moreover, the facts in the earlier Assessment Year 2007-08 were found identical and nothing was shown to us as to why the same was not correct and/or inapplicable to the subject assessment year. 10. Accordingly, Question (a) having been dismissed on 7 May 2015 and Question (b) is also not being entertained as it is a question of fact, not giving rise t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
