TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgment of the court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA J.-This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue. The question which is proposed for the purpose of calling for the statement of the case from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case prevalent in the assessment year 1991-92, the Tribunal was right in holding that the method of valuation of closing stock followed by the assessee was justified?" The facts which have given rise to this application are that the assessee was assessed for the year 1991-92. During the assessment year the assessee had consumed 66,14,484 pudas of "tendu" leaves valued at Rs. 62,47,55 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that when the opening stock and the purchases are mixed together and it is not possible to identify, which item in the closing stock is out of the opening stock and which item is out of purchase, to ascertain the cost of the closing stock to adopt the average rate of opening stock and purchases is the proper method. The Tribunal gave its stamp of approval to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who had accepted the mean adopted by the assessee. Thereafter an application was preferred under section 256(1) of the Act for referring the question to this court. However, the Tribunal expressed the view that no referable question of law did arise and accordingly it declined to refer the same. We have heard Mr. Rohit Ary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aised at the Bar, we have studiedly scrutinised the order passed by the Assessing Officer as that was the trump card of the Revenue. We have also dissected the order passed by the appellate authority. On a scrutiny of both the orders it is perceivable that the first appellate authority had not accepted the method adopted by the Assessing Officer as that was not a scientific method. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the earlier orders and ascribing reasons accepted the method adopted by the assessee. In the case of Bindal Jewellers [2002] 257 ITR 777 (Raj), the Division Bench was in seisin of the question. The Bench while dealing with similar question expressed the view that on the basis of the material brought on record the value may diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
