ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. JAGDISH PRASAD GUPTA, NEW DELHI

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XXIII, dated 31/01/2013 passed in first appeal No. 254/11-12 for A.Y 2009-10.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing nor any application for adjournment was filed. However, on perusal of the records, we find it appropriate to decide the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the ld. DR. Hence we proceed to adjudicate the same in the absence of the assessee.

We have heard the ld. DR and have perused the relevant material on record. At the very outset, after going through the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that Ground No. 1 raised by the revenue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the consolidated order of the Tribunal dated 10.2.2011 in assessee’s own case for A.Y 2008-09. The ld. CIT(A), at para 4 of his order, deleted the addition of Rs. 2,76,21,682/- by following the Tribunal order [supra] as the issue in question was squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. Accordingly, we find the ld. CIT(A)’s order wherein he has followed the Tribunal order dated 31.7.2009 and deleted the addition to be quite in order. Finding no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), we uphold the same. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.

Ground No. 2 is in relation to deletion of addition of Rs. 24,14,676/- made by the AO on account of difference in details of closing stock.

Brief facts relating to this ground as brought out from the impugned order are that the accounts of M/s Jindal Service Station, a petrol pump of India Oil Corporation have been audited for the year under consideration. The closing stock of Rs. 31,53,914/- is reflected in the audited profit and loss account and balance sheet. A mistake was made by the accountant of the concern while filing details on 11.10.2011 before the AO and the AO and the assessee acknowledged the error in his reply dated 16.12.2011. Not satisfied with the explanation tendered by the assessee, the AO added the sum of RS. 24,12,676/- to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who deleted the same. Now the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Before us, the ld. DR reiterated his stand taken before the authorities below. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the assessing authority and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in giving relief to the assessee.

Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record, we find that before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by coming to the conclusion that the accounts of the assessee had been audited and the closing stock of Rs. 31,53,914/- appears therein, the AO had no basis for making an addition of Rs. 24,143,676/- only on the basis of a working submitted on behalf of the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) further held that as the assessee had pleaded clerical error, the AO was not justified in making the addition only on the basis of closing stock summary submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee and supposedly drawn up by the office accountant while ignoring the audit report and audited accounts. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that no reliable material forms the basis of the addition of Rs. 24,14,676/- and the same deserves to be deleted. We find that the ld. CIT(A) was correct in arriving at the conclusion and finding no infirmity, we uphold the same and dismiss Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue.