9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ening stock at the market price while it had valued the closing stock at cost. According to the ITO, he had noticed that the assessee had valued the opening stock at the market price while it had valued the closing at cost. According to the ITO, the assessee had, thus, changed the method of valuation of the stock adopting the cost price of closing stock. The ITO worked out that the assessee had undervalued the closing stock of Rs. 63,690. He, therefore, included this amount in the total income of the assessee. 3. In appeal before the CIT(A), it had submitted on behalf of the assessee that, since under the law the assessee is entitled to value on the stock at market price or at cost whichever is low, the ITO was not justified in making the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his action. In this connection, he invited our attention to the various written submissions made before the ITO during the course of assessment proceedings in order to support his contention that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 63,690. In particular the ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention to page 9 of his paper book containing market quotations and pointed out that the cost price of the closing stock was always lower than the market price. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties as well as the material placed before us and we do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the revenue. In our view, the CIT(A) has given very cogent and valid reasons for accepting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they do not fall within the definition of "relative" contained in s. 2(41) of the Act. The ITO, however, did not accept the stand taken on behalf of the assessee as he was of the view that cousin brothers and sisters would also fall within the definition of "relative". The ITO, therefore, framed the assessment on the assessee treating it as a company in which the public were not substantially interested. 7. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submissions which were made before the ITO and urged that it should be treated as company in which the public were substantially interested. In this connection, it was pointed out to the CIT(A) that if the shareholders of the cousin brothers/sisters of Shri Jyoti Prakash Maskara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one parent in common. It is in this sense that the term brother has been used in s. 2(41), it cannot include cousins where there is no common parent involved and only some of the ancestors are common. If the legislature has intended to rope in the term relative cousin also it could have done so and not taken support of the word brother. In view of the above discussion it cannot be held that the assessee's case is one that of a company in which the public are not substantially interested. 7A. That ld. representative, for the department once again strongly relied on the order of the ITO and submitted that the order of the CIT(A) on this point be also reversed. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand supported the action of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
