Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH,SURAT
Before: SHRI C.M.GARG & SHRI O.P.MEENA
आदेश/ORDER PERC.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the Revenuehas been filed challenging the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 23.09.2016 for the assessment year (AY) 2013-14 passed in the first Appeal No.CIT(A)/VLS/341/15-16/870.
The grounds 3 & 4 of the Revenue are of general in nature, remaining effective grounds for adjudication read as under:
2 ITA No.3018/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2013-14) M/s. Aqua Plast 1. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred deleting the addition made by the AO u/s. 69 of IT Act on account of difference in quantity and value of the stock as shown in the books of accounts vis-à-vis submitted to the Bank. 2. In the similar issue involved in the case of CIT, Ahmedabad III Vs. M/s. Riddhi Steel & Tubes Pvt. Ltd., the Revenue has filed SLP before Supreme Court of India vide no. SLP (Civil) CC 8556 of 2014 which is pending. 3. We have heard the arguments of the both sides, and carefully perused the relevant material placed on the record of the Tribunal. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on account of difference in quantity and value of the stock as shown in the books of accounts vis-à-vis submitted to the bank. The ld. DR further submitted that in the similar facts and circumstances issue involved in the case of CIT v. M/s. Riddhi Steel & Tubes Pvt. Ltd., the Revenue has filed SLP before Supreme Court which is pending. The ld. DR lastly submitted that in view of the fact of pendency of issue before Hon’ble Supreme Court the order of ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the AO.
Replying to the above, the ld. Assessee’s Representative (AR) strongly supported the first appellate order and also drew our attention towards relevant para 6 of the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the AO has not pointed out any defects in the value of stock shown by the assessee and for making addition, the AO has only relied upon the value and quantity closing stock contained in the stock statement submitted by the assessee to the bank for obtaining cash credit/loan. The ld. AR vehemently pointed out that
3 ITA No.3018/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2013-14) M/s. Aqua Plast as per decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. Riddhi Steel & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported at [2013] 36 taxmann.com 369 (Ahmedabad) may be on the basis of statement made to the bank authorities to avail larger credit facilities additions cannot be made on account of difference arising in quantity and value of stock shown in the books of accounts and statement furnished to the bank authorities. The ld. AR finally submitted that the appeal of the Revenue may kindly be dismissed.
On careful consideration of above rival submissions, at the very outset we take respectful note of the fact that the SLP filed by the department against the order of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of ACIT v. M/s. Riddhi Steel & Tubes Pvt. Ltd., is pending. However, until and unless the said decision of Hon'ble High Court is holding the field we are bound to follow the same. Merely because SLP of the department is pending before Hon'ble Apex Court the binding effect of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court cannot be and should not be wiped out. In the present case, the AO made addition on the basis of difference between statement submitted by the assessee to the banking authorities to avail larger credit facilities of quantity and value of the stock shown in the books of accounts which is not sustainable in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT v. M/s. Riddhi Steel & Tubes Pvt. Ltd.(supra). Therefore, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the
4 ITA No.3018/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2013-14) M/s. Aqua Plast impugned first appellate order and hence, we uphold the same. Accordingly, grounds 1 & 2 of the Revenue are being divide of merits are dismissed.
In the result,the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this day of13thMarch, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (ओपीमीना) (सीएमगग�) (O.P.MEENA) (C.M.GARG) लेखासद�य/Accountant Member �या�यकसद�य/Judicial Member सूरत/Surat; �दनांकDated :13thMarch, 2018 EDN आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant; 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent; 2. आयकरआयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Valsad; 3. 4. Pr. CIT, Valsad; �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण,सूरत/ DR, ITAT, Surat; 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard file. 6
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत��त //True Copy// सहायकप�जीकर / Assistant Registrar आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण,सूरत / ITAT, Surat