Ita/17/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.southern Cashew Exporters

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 17 of 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 566/2011 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 28-06-2013 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S.SOUTHERN CASHEW EXPORTERS,CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVISMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPHSRI.JOSE JOSEPH (CHEMPLAYIL)SRI.R.SREEJITH OTHER PRESENT: THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON27.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Vinod Chandran, J. JUDGMENT The issue raised in the above appeal is withrespect to the estimation made by the Assessing Officer(for short “AO”) on the basis of an undervaluationfound by the bank of the closing stock. The assesseehad declared certain closing stock before the bankauthorities as also the Income Tax Department. Thebank authorities verified the same and found that thevaluation of the closing stock was not as shown in theaccounts of the assessee. The AO then assumed that thedifference was due to a sale carried out in the saidyear. An addition was made to that extent. TheCommissioner interfered with the same finding that thequantity as declared before the Department and thebank was the same. However, there was a differentvaluation shown before the bank and before theDepartment. Before the bank, the market price wasadopted and before the Department it was at the costincurred by the assessee. The bank infact noticed thatmany of the stock had been rendered useless by reason of it having turned rotten and some having been foundbroken. The appellate authority found that there is noreason to find suppression of sales. The Tribunalaffirmed the finding since the quantity declared wasidentical and there was no question of sales havingbeen conducted, which was not reflected in the books ofaccounts. We find that the adjudication was on factsand no question of law arises. We hence, reject theappeal of the Revenue. No costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE dkr Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE APPENDIX APPELLANT'S(S) ANNEXURES ANNEXURE ACOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S143(3) DATED 30.12.2010143(3) DATED 30.12.2010 ANNEXURE BCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS) DATED 25.07.2011TAX (APPEALS) DATED 25.07.2011 ANNEXURE CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATETRIBUNAL DATED 28.06.2013.TRIBUNAL DATED 28.06.2013.