Andey Ranga Rao & Co. v. Income-tax Officer, Palkol
[Citation -2017-LL-1101-13]

Citation 2017-LL-1101-13
Appellant Name Andey Ranga Rao & Co.
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Palkol
Court HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 01/11/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags question of law • closing stock
Bot Summary: The facts in brief leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in civil contract works. Based on which, the AO has passed the assessment order, the appellant has questioned the assessment by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A). The appeal filed before the Tribunal having also been dismissed, the assessee filed this appeal. At the hearing, Mr. Y.Ratnakar, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that mere admission or concession made by the assessee does not disentitle him to question the assessment order if the same is not in accordance with law. As regards the concession, assuming that the appellant is entitled to question the assessment order if the same is not otherwise in accordance with law, we find from the impugned order that the Tribunal has not only relied upon the concession made by the appellant but also referred to the merits of the case. On appeal, Id. CiT after considering the explanation of the assessee, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. In our opinion, no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.


HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM ITTA.No.667 of 2017 Date:01.11.2017 Between: M/s Andey Ranga Rao & Co., West Godavari District. ..... Appellant And: Income Tax Officer, Palkol. .....Respondent Counsel for appellant: Mr. Y.Ratnakar Court made following: 2 CVNR, J & CKR, J ITTA.No.667 of 2017 Dated:01.11.2017 JUDGMENT: (per Hon ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This appeal, under Section-260 (A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ), is directed against order, dated 05.6.2017, in ITA.No.407/Vizag/2016 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam SMC Bench, Visakhapatnam (for short Tribunal ). facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal are as follows: appellant is partnership firm engaged in civil contract works. In returns filed by it for assessment year 2008-09, it has declared total income of Rs.21,550/-. Assessing Officer (AO) has noted that appellant has shown amount of Rs.6,02,000/- as Closing Stock in balance sheet, but same was not reflected in Profit and Loss Account. When clarification was sought for from appellant, its authorised representative has agreed for making addition of Rs.6,02,000/-. Accordingly, said sum was included in taxable income. Having so agreed, based on which, AO has passed assessment order, appellant has questioned assessment by filing appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {CIT(A)}. He has sought to explain before CIT (A) that closing stock was adjusted against 3 CVNR, J & CKR, J ITTA.No.667 of 2017 Dated:01.11.2017 purchase of materials such as metal (kankara), cement and iron and that only consumption of material was debited to Profit and Loss Account. CIT (A), however, rejected said explanation and dismissed appeal. appeal filed before Tribunal having also been dismissed, assessee filed this appeal. At hearing, Mr. Y.Ratnakar, learned counsel for appellant, has submitted that mere admission or concession made by assessee does not disentitle him to question assessment order if same is not in accordance with law. He has further submitted that though proper explanation was offered by appellant before both appellate authorities, neither of them considered same. As regards concession, assuming that appellant is entitled to question assessment order if same is not otherwise in accordance with law, we find from impugned order that Tribunal has not only relied upon concession made by appellant but also referred to merits of case. In paragraph-8 of impugned order, Tribunal observed as under: In this case, assessee has shown amount of Rs.6,02,000/- in balance sheet as closing stock, but same was not reflected in Profit and Loss Account. When Assessing Officer asked assessee, he agreed for addition. Accordingly, Assessing Officer made 4 CVNR, J & CKR, J ITTA.No.667 of 2017 Dated:01.11.2017 addition. On appeal, Id. CiT (A) after considering explanation of assessee, confirmed addition made by Assessing Officer. Before us, assessee has not filed any material or any explanation as to why amount of Rs.6,02,000/- is not reflected in Profit and Loss Account. Therefore, by considering facts and circumstances of case, we are of opinion that authorities below properly examined issue and made addition. assessee is not able to point out any error in order passed by Id. CIT (A), hence, we find no infirmity in order of Id. CIT(A). It is trite that appeal under Section-260 (A) of Act is maintainable on substantial question of law. In this appeal, question of law raised, i.e., whether appellant has adjusted closing stock against value of material purchased from supplier or not, is pure question of fact with reference to which Tribunal has rendered above- mentioned finding that no material has been produced as to why sum of Rs.6,02,000/- is not reflected in Profit and Loss Account. Therefore, in our opinion, no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM 01st November 2017 DR Andey Ranga Rao & Co. v. Income-tax Officer, Palkol
Report Error