Court No. - 3 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 32 of 2017 Appellant :- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-II, Lucknow Respondent :- M/S Wm Blue Chip Investment Services Pvt. Ltd.,Lucknow Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Mathur Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J. 1. Heard Sri Alok Mathur, learned counsel for appellant and perused record. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961") has arisen from judgment and order dated 26.04.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'B', Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Income Tax Appeal No. 756/Lkw/2015. 3. Tribunal has rejected appeal of Revenue and confirmed judgment of Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)") dated 09.09.2015 with regard to change of principle for stock valuation relying on judgment of Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delta Plantation Ltd., 1993 (71) Taxman 329 holding that said principle is not shown to be unrecognized accounting method or otherwise unjust or illegal and there is also no bar for change of accounting system, therefore, new system adopted by Assessee cannot be said to be bad. 4. argument raised is that method adopted on opening stock should be followed in closing stock. However, there is some fallacy in this argument for reason that normally method of opening stock is same as it was for closing stock of previous year. If accounting system is to be changed obviously it has to be changed from opening stock of year onward and that is what has been done in case in hand. Therefore, it cannot be said that whatever method followed in opening stock that has not been followed in closing stock. Method of previous year cannot be applied otherwise there would be no case or in no circumstances accounting method can be altered and indirectly bar will be created for Assessee for changing his method of accounting, though with development of system, new and well recognized methods in commercial circle are being introduced and adopted regularly. 5. Learned counsel for Revenue then contended that there is some error in mentioning of stock valuation with respect to Assessment Year in question and Previous Year and he shows that figures have been mentioned in reverse, but that being factual mistake and can always be got rectified by moving application before appropriate authority. This does not give rise to substantial question of law. 6. We, therefore, do not find that any substantial question of law has arisen in this matter. 7. Dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 7.9.2017 AK Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Wm Blue Chip Investment Services Pvt. Ltd