9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d made on account of difference in figures of closing stock submitted to the Bank and balance sheet submitted to the Department. 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the above issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the consolidated order, dated 26.03.2015 of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench. The ld. counsel further submitted that the Bunch of appeals was decided by this order and the common issue in all these appeals was as to whether the addition could be made on the basis of difference in valuation of stock, as submitted to the Bank and as per the balance sheet submitted to the department. The ld. counsel in this respect submitted that while deciding the bunch of appeals, the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, had take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention of the A/R of the appellant that the stock was not physically verified by the bank and even the stock statement dated 31.03.2010 was belated. These facts are a matter of record in view of the statement of Sh. Kundan Singh Bank Manager recorded by the AO on 09.03.2013 in which he has not been able to state anything about the physical verification of stock because he joined the bank on 07.06.2010. In the cross examination by the A/R of the appellant he accepted that the penalty of Rs.4335.11 was imposed for belated stock statement dated 31.03.2010 and further that no date of receipt has been mentioned on the stock statement dated 31.03.2010. iii) The filing of two profit & loss account and balance sheets by the assessee also does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the stock has not been physically verified by the bank. In the present case the AO has failed to prove that the stock statement dated 31.03.2010 was filed on which date with the bank which further proves that the stock as on 31.03.2010 were never physically verified. As discussed supra, the judgment of the Hon'ble P & H High Court in the case of Devgon Rice & General Mills vs. CIT, 263 ITR 391 is distinguishable on facts. Hence, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.84,10,600/- made u/s 69 of the Act. The relevant grounds of appeal is treated as allowed." 5. We find that the above issue is squarely covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the consolidated order dated 26.03.2015 of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of difference furnished to the bank as per books of account u/s 69B of the Act can not be sustained. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court against the said decision, the Revenue went in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 13.12.2008 dismissed the SLP filed by the department. 34. Similar decisions have been made by various courts of law referred to hereinabove: i) CIT vs. Sidhu Rice & General Mills reported in 281 ITR 428 (P&H) ii) CIT vs. Santosh Box Factory (P) Ltd.., 44 IT Reps. 472 (P&H) iii) CIT vs. N. Swamy reported in 241 ITR 363 (Madras) i) ITO vs. Devi Dayal Rice Mills reported in 75 TTJ 24 (ITAT, Amritsar Bench. ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
