TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, the purchase of material between 25th March 2007 to 31st March 2007 can be ₹ 22,27,607/-. Therefore, no addition in the present case can be made on surmises and conjectures. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a pure finding of fact which has not been shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue warranting interference by this Court. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 356 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 14-10-2015 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. S. K. Mukhi, Adv JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ike railway over-bridges, airport and other government constructions. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had not shown any closing stock or closing Working in Progress (WIP) in the profit and loss account/balance sheet for the year ending 31.3.2007. The assessee had not maintained stock register. The method of valuation of closing stock was stated to be at cost or market value whichever was lower. The Assessing Officer made the following additions on account of closing stock/WIP:- a) Material : ₹ 22,27,607/- as per the details furnished by the assessee. b) Wages: ₹ 9,21,979/- being 1/6th of the expenditure incurred under this head in the month of March 2007. c) Earth fillin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The CIT(A) on appeal gave partial relief to the assessee but confirmed the additions on account of closing work in progress and disallowance of ₹ 38,000/- on account of interest on interest free loans. The Tribunal on considering the matter recorded that since the assessee had been following the same method of accounting consistently for many years, in the absence of any justification by the authorities below in their orders, different methodology could not be adopted. Therefore, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were not held to be justified in adopting different methodology. It was further recorded that if the method of accounting is changed by the Assessing officer, then for including the closing stock/WIP in the income, the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the revenue and how the profit has been under estimated has not been worked out properly. The AO has relied upon the measurement book of Jalandhar Improvement Trust and the same has been applied on the other contractees which infact is not true. It has been argued and also is on record that the assessee had received payment upto 30th March. Therefore, on no account, the purchase of material between 25th March 2007 to 31st March 2007 can be ₹ 22,27,607/-. Therefore, no addition in the present case can be made on surmises and conjectures. 5. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a pure finding of fact which has not been shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue warranting int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
