M/S.reflect Optics Pvt.ltd., Mumbai v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax,Range 5(1), Mumbai

dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.141 OF 2006 M/s.Reflect Optics Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax,Range 5(1), Mumbai. AppellantRespondents Mr.S.N.Inamdar for the Appellant. Mr.R.Ashokan for the respondents. CORAM : V.C. DAGA &ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 6th January, 2009 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. We were extensively taken through the impugned order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has recorded its findings as under: "8. We have considered the rival submissions.The ld. CIT(A) has recorded a categoricalfinding that there was a shortage of stock asworked out by the Assessing Officer. He,therefore, upheld the finding of the survey Temwith regard to the shortage of stock to theextent of 2,41,314 pieces. He has consideredall the submissions made on behalf of theassessee before the AO as also before him. Nomaterial has been placed before us to show thatthe stock worked by the survey team wasincorrect. On the other hand, we find that thediscrepancies in stock position were clearlyadmitted by Shri Anil Hingorani, in response toquestion No.12 of the statement recorded on thedate of survey. The burden was on the assessee to correctly work out the stock as per thebooks of account and reconcile the same withthe stock physically found at the time ofsurvey. All the relevant facts were within thespecial knowledge of the assessee. There isnoting on record to show that the said burdenwas satisfactorily discharged by the assesseeat the time of survey. If the assessee stillwanted to challenge the correctness of thestock position found at the time of survey theburden the was on the assessee to bringsufficient material on record to show that thestock position, as stated by the assesseeitself, or the stock position as worked out bythe survey team was incorrect. This was notdone. What the assessee has attempted to showin the present case is that the stock countingwas not property done for which there is noevidence. In this view of the matter, weconfirm the finding of the ld. CIT(A) thatthere was discrepancy in the stock recorded inthe books vis-a-vis the stock physically foundat the time of survey."The Tribunal has remanded this matter with certain 3. directions contained in paragraph 18 which is reproduced hereinbelow: "18. We have considered the rival submissions.The Assessing Officer has made the addition withthe observation that the assessee has notsubmitted specific details showing quantity wiseand lot wise valuation of closing stock. He,therefore, valued the closing stock atRs.72,72,190/- as against the value of closingstock shown by the assessee at Rs.26,07,032/-.Since the addition has made by the AssessingOfficer with the observation that requisitedetails were not filed, it is consideredappropriate to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter to him withdirection to examine the issue afresh. Heshould obtain the quantitative details ofclosing sock as also its value. He, should, inparticular, record his finding on the followingaspects of the case:(a)Physical quantity of closing stock as alsoits reconciliation with the stock found atthe time of survey. Act, during the course of survey proceedings at the premises of the assessee on 15.11.1995 and 28.11.1995. admission. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. [ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] [V.C. DAGA,J.]