TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his reply, assessment has been completed taking one of the possible views thereby accepting that assessee had a bonafide reason for such difference of value of stock within the range of 10%. It has been consistently held in various judgments that it is not mandatory for the Assessing Authority to mention each and every information recorded or details received during the course of assessment proceedings in the body of assessment order. This even applies in the instant appeal also where even though details were specifically filed replying to the Assessing Officer’s query, it did not find any mention in the body of the order because of the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority on the issue. The assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat against this quantum addition the assessee got success before the Tribunal. 3. Subsequent to the order u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 16/12/2009, assessment records of the assessee were called and examined by the CIT. It was noticed that there was discrepancy in the valuation of stock shown in the profit loss account as against the stock records given to the bankers for obtaining OD facilities. The difference between the two statements is ₹ 7,97,545/-. On the basis of this observation, CIT concluded that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and needs to be set aside and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct needs to be quashed. 5. On the other hand Learned D.R. supporting the order of CIT submitted that assessee on one hand is claiming to be maintaining regular books of account then why the difference has arisen. Further the assessee himself has accepted the under valuation of the closing stock and therefore, the CIT has rightly assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 and quashed the assessment order u/s 143(4) directing for fresh assessment proceedings. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The issue raised before us is whether CIT assumed correct jurisdiction to frame the order u/s 263 on the premise that Assessing Officer failed to adjudicate the issue of under valuation of closing stock thereby assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one view with which the CIT does not agree then in such case it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. 6.2 Now in the light of above judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, let us examine the sequence of facts of the present appeal. We find that the assessee s case was selected for scrutiny assessment. Notice u/s 143(2) was served upon the assessee on 06/08/2008. Further the fresh notice/s 142(1) dated 19/01/2009 was issued. Thereafter on 05/11/2009 another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued requiring assessee to furnish various details. In this notice placed at page No. 20 of the paper book, Assessing Officer has raised 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit as on 31/03/2007 is enclosed herewith. The comparison chart showing the figures as per bank statement and our final statement is as under:- Difference of stock between Bank statement and our financial statement as on 31.03.2007. SI No. Particular As per our Books As per Bank Statement Difference 1. Clay 11898.12 M.T. 11974.07 M.T. 76.75M.T. 0.65% 2. Fuel 670.88 M.T. 629.94 M.T. 40.94 M.T. 6.5% 3. Store Spare ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt. After considering this detailed reply of the assessee dated 26/11/2009 the Assessing Officer has framed the assessment order on 16/12/2009 and completed the assessment proceedings after making addition towards undisclosed sales. We, therefore, are satisfied to the extent that against the specific query raised by the Assessing Officer relating to stock statement given to bank and after going through this reply, assessment has been completed taking one of the possible views thereby accepting that assessee had a bonafide reason for such difference of value of stock within the range of 10%. 7.1 We further find that it has been consistently held in various judgments that it is not mandatory for the Assessing Authority to mention each and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
