TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has gone down, the deduction for the difference of the price is permissible. On the contrary, if the appellants’ contention is accepted, then in the succeeding year when it is offered to tax for the amount of ₹ 29.50 Crores and the deduction is made impermissible, it would result into double taxation. It is not a case of the revenue that with a view to avoid real tax, the book entries were shown lowering down the value of the stock. On the contrary, it is on account of the objection raised by C.A.G., that the assessee has correctly valued the stock on trade at the market price, prevailing then. The case of manipulation f or avoiding the payment of tax stands on a different footing, but the same has not been pleaded before the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d aspect, has observed at Paragraph Nos.9 and 10 as under:- 9. A lot of emphasis has been placed by the Assessing Officer on the question as to whether the inclusion of iron ore in transit, which was lying at various ports and was stated to be in possession of the assessee, in the closing stock was in accordance with the method of accounting regularly followed by the assessee or not. That aspect of the matter is, however, wholly immaterial because even if this stock was not to be included in the closing stock, the losses on purchase of iron ore, which was so clearly anticipated a loss and which could be reasonably quantified, was admissible as a deduction. When a trader agrees to buy a product at x value and the market price as on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k, this addition amounts to double addition of income. All that is material for us is whether the fall in value of stock to the tune of ₹ 29.50 crores should have been allowed as a deduction in this year, i.e. assessment year 2009-10, or not . We are concerned with the assessment year 2009-10 only and, for the detailed reasons set out above, in our considered view the reduction in the value of closing stock, particularly in the light of the fall in the value of iron ores- as tabulated in page 6 of learned CIT(A) s order and as reproduced below paragraph 5 earlier in this order, was quite justified. We hold so. In any case, the Assessing Officer has made adjustment only for the value of closing stock but once the purchases are accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. He submitted that in the earlier year, prior to the assessment year in question, the goods were not shown as stock in trade, but in the account the same was treated as loans and advances. In the subsequent year, to the assessment year in question, again the same method has been adopted. He therefore submitted that an unusual method was adopted in accounting by treating the amount of loans and advances as that of the stock in trade and further, lowering down the valuation thereof, to claim the deduction, was uncalled for and the same cannot be said to be permissible in law. He also submitted that if such a practice is permitted, the resultant effect would be that the tax for a particular assessment year would get shifted to next asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
