The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. The Haryana Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.,Circular Road, Rohtak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 109 of 2009Date of decision: 21.7.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak. Vs. The Haryana Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.,Circular Road, Rohtak. ......Appellant ...Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT:Mr.Krishan Kumar Mahta, Advocate, for the appellant.**** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1.The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench, 'C' New Delhi passed inAssessee's Appeal in ITA No. 3465/Del/2007 for the assessment year 2003-04. Learned counsel presses only the following substantial question of law: “ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether theHon'ble ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) Rohtak who deleted the addition of Rs.1,36,49,874/- madeby the AO on account of under valuation of stock withoutpassing any speaking order ?” 2.The assessee was a Cooperative Society dealing in themanufacturing and sale of sugar. Return declaring loss was filed. Onassessment, the Assessing Officer made addition to the declared income by ITA No. 109 of 2009 [2] adding interest on the cane purchase tax and further making addition to thevalue of the closing stock. The additions were deleted by the CIT(A) andupheld by the Tribunal. On the issue of deletion on account of interestliability, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inCIT vs. Laxmi Devi Sugar Mils (P) Ltd. 188 ITR 41 (SC).As regardsaddition to the value of closing stock, it was held that the valuation of theclosing stock had to be taken as per books of accounts and not by applyingthe average sale rate of the whole year. 3.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that theAssessing Officer was justified in applying the average sale rate for thewhole year instead of adopting the average sale rate for the month of Marchadopted by the assessee. However, he is unable to show any principlewhich may justify application of average sale rate for the whole year forvaluation of the stock. 4.The view taken by the Tribunal cannot, thus, be held to be perverse. 5.Question proposed cannot be held to be substantial question of law. 6.The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY)July 21, 2009 JUDGEraghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No