The Commissioner of Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. Southern Cashew Exporters
[Citation -2019-LL-0227-76]

Citation 2019-LL-0227-76
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram
Respondent Name Southern Cashew Exporters
Court HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 27/02/2019
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags cost incurred • closing stock • market price • undervaluation of closing stock • unaccounted sales
Bot Summary: The assessee had declared certain closing stock before the bank authorities as also the Income Tax Department. The bank authorities verified the same and found that the valuation of the closing stock was not as shown in the accounts of the assessee. The Commissioner interfered with the same finding that the quantity as declared before the Department and the bank was the same. There was a different valuation shown before the bank and before the Department. The bank infact noticed that many of the stock had been rendered useless by reason I.T.A. No. 17 of 2014 3 of it having turned rotten and some having been found broken. The appellate authority found that there is no reason to find suppression of sales. The Tribunal affirmed the finding since the quantity declared was identical and there was no question of sales having been conducted, which was not reflected in the books of accounts.


IN HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1940 ITA.No. 17 of 2014 AGAINST ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 566/2011 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 28-06-2013 APPELLANT/S: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S.SOUTHERN CASHEW EXPORTERS, CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (CHEMPLAYIL) SRI.R.SREEJITH OTHER PRESENT: THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.02.2019, COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED FOLLOWING: I.T.A. No. 17 of 2014 2 JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J. issue raised in above appeal is with respect to estimation made by Assessing Officer (for short AO ) on basis of undervaluation found by bank of closing stock. assessee had declared certain closing stock before bank authorities as also Income Tax Department. bank authorities verified same and found that valuation of closing stock was not as shown in accounts of assessee. AO then assumed that difference was due to sale carried out in said year. addition was made to that extent. Commissioner interfered with same finding that quantity as declared before Department and bank was same. However, there was different valuation shown before bank and before Department. Before bank, market price was adopted and before Department it was at cost incurred by assessee. bank infact noticed that many of stock had been rendered useless by reason I.T.A. No. 17 of 2014 3 of it having turned rotten and some having been found broken. appellate authority found that there is no reason to find suppression of sales. Tribunal affirmed finding since quantity declared was identical and there was no question of sales having been conducted, which was not reflected in books of accounts. We find that adjudication was on facts and no question of law arises. We hence, reject appeal of Revenue. No costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENON dkr JUDGE I.T.A. No. 17 of 2014 4 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S(S) ANNEXURES ANNEXURE COPY OF ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) DATED 30.12.2010 ANNEXURE B COPY OF ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 25.07.2011 ANNEXURE C COPY OF ORDER OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.06.2013. Commissioner of Income-tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. Southern Cashew Exporter
Report Error