ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. ELGI ELECTRIC & INDUSTRIES LTD., COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2362/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 July 2017AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue afresh. This was based on previous similar matters where the issue was remitted for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added a difference in closing stock value to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, treating the revised closing stock as opening stock for the next year. The revenue appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the revised closing stock value should be considered as opening stock for the subsequent assessment year and if the Assessing Officer properly considered the assessee's explanations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri Jagadisan, CA
Hearing: 30.05.2017Pronounced: 26.07.2017

आदेश /O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore in dated 16.05.2016.

:-2-: I.T.A. N0. 2362/Mds/2016

2.

In the assessment made for assessment year 2011-12, the Assessing Officer found that the value of the closing stock as per balance sheet as on 31.03.2011 was at Rs. 9,23,08,346/-. However, the closing stock value submitted to the bank as on that day was at Rs. 9,99,36,731/-. Thus, there was a difference of Rs. 76,28,385/-.

After giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard etc., taking cognizance of Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in B.T. Steels Limited Vs CIT 328 ITR 471 and the Jurisdictional High Court decision in Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Limited Vs CIT 95 ITR 375, the Assessing Officer added the above difference of Rs. 76,28,385/- u/s.

69.

Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) relying on this ITAT order in dated 30.04.2014 for assessment year 2009-10 allowed the appeal holding that the closing stock of this year would be treated as an opening stock for the next year. Aggrieved against the CIT(A) order, the revenue filed this appeal pleading that the CIT(A) should not have allowed the revised value of closing stock for assessment year 2010-11 as the opening stock for assessment year 2011-12.

3.

We heard the rival submissions. Similar issue come up before this Tribunal in assessment year 2008-09. The tribunal in its order in dated 29.04.2013, has set aside the issue for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.

For assessment year 2009-10 also, this tribunal in its order in dated 30.04.2014 remitted back the issue to the AO to consider the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VKJ Builders and Contractors P. Ltd., Vs CIT 318 ITR 204. In the appeal for assessment year 2010-11, this tribunal in its order in ITA No. 2591/Mds/2014 dated 20.03.2015 has held that the AO has not considered

:-3-: I.T.A. N0. 2362/Mds/2016 the explanations given by the assessee in proper manner. The Ld. CIT(A) also has not considered the issue in detail. Therefore, it set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to consider the issue afresh keeping in view the order of the Tribunal in dated 28.04.2013. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to consider the issue afresh keeping in view the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 2160/Mds/2011 dated 28.04.2013, as held by this tribunal for assessment year 2010-11, the year before this assessment year.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 26th day of July, 2017 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →