Itxa/2216/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 25 Mumbai v. Dharati Estate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2216 OF 2011WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2316 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-25..Appellant.V/s.M/s. Dharati Estate..Respondent. Mr. Tejveer Singh, for the Appellant in both the matters.Mr. Ajay R. Singh, for the Respondent in both the matters. P.C:- CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 5[th] MARCH, 2013. Heard. 2In these Appeals by the Revenue for the Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, following common question has been raised for our consideration:- Whether the Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition made on account of under valuation of closing stock? 3The Respondent-Assessee is engaged in construction of flats, shops etc., following the percentage of completion of Contract Method of Accounts. In these two Assessment Years under consideration, the S.R.JOSHI Assessing Officer did not accept the valuation of closing stock done by the Respondent-Assesee and without doubting the books of account estimated the value of closing stock. 4In appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the Respondent-Assessee's Appeal and deleted the addition made on account of closing stock. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of addition made on account of under valuation of closing stock by the CIT(A). The Tribunal further held that the Respondent-Assessee during the Assessment Year 2000-01, on completion of the project, had offered the entire amount to be taxed. In this view, the valuation of the closing stock which was allegedly under valued was also included in the profit for the Assessment Year 2000-01 as subjected to tax. The Revenue has also accepted the profit offered by the Respondent-Assessee for the Assessment Year 2000-01. 5In this view of the matter, as the amount attributable to under valuation of closing stock was offered to tax and taxed in the Assessment Year 2000-01, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 6Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)