TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in upholding the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,46,879 made by the AO on account of undervaluation of closing stock ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that investment in the purchase of stock in trade required for the business not recorded in the regular books, and as appearing in seized diary, pertains to asst. yr. 1988-89 and not to 198788 ? While Appeal No. 13 of 2003 was admitted on 27th Feb., 2003 without framing any substantial question of law. The matters were argued with the understanding that both the appeals involve the substantial question of law No. 2 framed in Appeal No. 11 of 2003 only, while the Appeal No. 11 of 2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... added as undisclosed investments were found to have been made during the period 3rd Nov., 1986 to 31st March, 1987, and the learned AO, considering the turnover of the financial year 1987-88, for the purpose of arriving at the investment, and GP, came to the conclusion that a sum of ₹ 2 lacs is required to be added, as unexplained investment in the asst. yr. 1987-88, and it was accordingly added. In appeal filed against the assessment, relating to asst. yr. 1987-88, it was found, after undertaking certain calculations that the addition required to be made is only of ₹ 88,000 instead of ₹ 2 lacs; for this purpose, the learned CIT(A) took into account the turnover, the transactions in the diary, considered the GPs, and thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee being Appeal No. 2607, this question was not required to be agitated, as the amount had been deleted, with the result, that notwithstanding the finding recorded by the Tribunal, as recorded about the amount being not capable of being added in the year 1987-88, and capable of being added only in the year 1988-89, the amount has gone deleted. Be that as it may. The fact does remain that the amount is required to be added, as the question of liability to add this amount, is not under challenge on the side of the assessee. The question, therefore, appears is, only, as to whether the amount is capable of being added in the year 1987-88 or 1988-89 ? For examining the question, the relevant provision of law is contained in s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, which are unrecorded; obviously, the financial year for these entries is to be taken to be from 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987, and for that financial year, assessment year has to be 1987-88 and not 1988-89. That being the position, the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that the amount is not capable of being added in the financial year 1987-88 cannot be sustained, and is set aside, and the question No. 2 framed in Appeal No. 11 of 2003 is accordingly answered. Obviously, since the amount being found liable to be added in the asst. yr. 1987-88, and is being so ordered to be added, it obviously need not be added again in the asst. yr. 1988-89, with the result, that the order of the Tribunal as challenged in Appeal No. 13 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
