TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to raise the plea regarding not asking to produce the relevant evidence while making valuation of stock in the reference application - It is purely on facts of this case and in the interest of justice that we are permitting the assessee to raise this ground in the reference application - - - - - Dated:- 24-4-2003 - Judge(s) : S. H. KAPADIA., J. P. DEVADHAR. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by S. H. KAPADIA J. - Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated December 29, 2000, in Miscellaneous Application No. 219/Bom of 1999, the assessee has come by way of appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In this appeal, we are concerned with the financial year ending December 31, 1985, relevant to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Commissioner, filed by the assessee, the addition of Rs. 8,30,996, to the value of the closing stock, was specifically challenged. In the statement of facts, it was specifically pointed out by the assessee that this addition to the value of the closing stock was wrongly made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee could not produce evidence to show that the market value of the stock had come down and that the assessee had failed to produce the stock register to show that the stock had been purchased long ago and was still lying with the assessee. The assessee specifically pleaded before the appellate authority that the above allegation of the Assessing Officer, viz., that the assessee did not produce any evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication as Miscellaneous Application No. 219/Bom of 1999. As stated above, this miscellaneous application was filed on April 21, 1999. We are informed that as per the practice prevalent in the Tribunal, the appellant has to serve a copy of the memo of appeal on the other side, though the appellant is required to file such memo of appeal with proper annexures under rule 9 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Our attention is also invited to rule 4A, which states that for any reason if the Registry of the Tribunal finds any defect in the memo of appeal or if the requisite documents do not accompany the memo of appeal, then the matter remains under objection. Now, in the present case, when the miscellaneous application reached f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we may point out that the order rejecting the miscellaneous application was passed on December 29, 2000, for correcting the mistake of the order of the Tribunal in appeal, dated September 10, 1998. However, on December 7, 1998, the assessee has already moved a reference application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is pending before the Tribunal in which one of the questions raised by the assessee is as follows: "Was the Tribunal justified without going into correct facts on record, in wrongly restoring the addition of Rs. 8,30,996 to the value of the closing stock ?" This point is of some relevance. Arguments: Mr. Porus Kaka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, contended that in this matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oings of the Department, which did not enclose the relevant documents as required under rule 9 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the miscellaneous application. Mr. R. V. Desai, learned senior counsel for the Department, contended that in this matter, this court should not interfere under section 260A of the Income-tax Act for two reasons. Firstly, he contended that the points urged before the Tribunal on non-compliance of rule 9 were not there in the miscellaneous application originally filed. Secondly, in any event, it was argued that the point now raised by the assessee is a subject-matter of Reference Application No. 1784/M of 1998 and in the circumstances, this court s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon by the Assessing Officer to produce the material supporting evidence regarding ageing of stock. This point is further relevant because the assessee has been following a particular method of valuation right from 1965-66 and in some of the earlier assessment years, the assessee had succeeded even before the Tribunal on the question of validity of the method of valuation. It is correct to say that each year constitutes a separate unit of assessment. It is correct to say that the Assessing Officer certainly has the authority to call upon the assessee to furnish the supporting evidence. However, in this case, the Assessing Officer has not done so. It is for this reason that against the said finding in appeal, the assessee had challenged th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
