Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax - I vs M/S Amar Jewellers Private Limited - ... on 12 October, 2011
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
TAXAP/476/2010 1/3 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL No. 476 of 2010
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I - Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S AMAR JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 1,
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 12/10/2011
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Following questions have been presented for our consideration.
(I) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.36,39,561/- on account of deliberate loss, made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner?
(II) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.7,51,733/- on account of under- valuation of closing stock in 22 carat manufactured ornaments, made by the HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Jul 06 02:12:19 IST 2016 TAXAP/476/2010 2/3 ORDER Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner?
(III) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.90,440/- on account of undervaluation of closing stock in pure gold, made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner?
(IV) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed an error in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Surat, without assigning any cogent and relevant reasons?
(V) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is contrary to the evidence and material on the record of the case and, hence perverse or not?
2. With respect to Question No.I, we are of the opinion that same requires consideration.
3. With respect to Question No.II, we notice that the Tribunal had ruled in favour of the assessee on the ground that the Assessing Officer had valued the closing stock only taking average stocks of diamonds manufactured during the year. It was found that the assessee totally ignored the stock of the working out of the ornaments. Tribunal thus found that working out adopted is erroneous. We do not find any question of law HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Jul 06 02:12:19 IST 2016 TAXAP/476/2010 3/3 ORDER arising.
4. Question No.III involves an amount which is extremely small, we are not inclined to entertain only on this count.
5. Question No.IV and V are nature of contentions which are not required to be referred.
6. In the result, appeal is admitted for consideration of Question No.I only.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (Ms. SONIA GOKANI, J.) (ashish) HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Jul 06 02:12:19 IST 2016