IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, vs. M/s M. S. Foods Pvt. Ltd., Ward-3(1), Ferozepur Vill. Bahadurwala, Ferozepur [PAN: AACCM 9834B] (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. M. P. Singh CIT-DR Respondent by: None Date of Hearing: 22.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 22.08.2019 ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran, Accountant Member: revenue has filed this appeal challenging order dated 24-10-2016 passed by Ld CIT(A), Bathinda and it relates to assessment year 2012-13. revenue is aggrieved by decision of Ld CIT(A) in deleting addition relating to stock difference of Rs.374.92 lakhs between book stock and statement of stock given to bank. 2. None appeared on behalf of assessee. Ld CIT-DR submitted that bench had directed revenue to serve notice and same has been served by affixure. Hence we proceed to dispose of appeal ex-parte, without presence of assessee. 2 ITA No. 75/Asr/2017 (AY 2012-13) ITO v. M. S. Foods Pvt. Ltd. 3. We heard Ld D.R and perused record. AO noticed that assessee has shown book stock at Rs.947.92 lakhs as on 31.3.2012, while stock value shown in Statement furnished to bank was Rs.1322.84 lakhs. When questioned, assessee submitted that it had adopted future realizable value of goods for valuing stock for bank purposes. Not convinced with explanations of assessee, AO added difference amount of Rs.374.92 lakhs to income of assessee u/s 69 of Act. In this regard, AO took support of decision rendered by Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Smt. Shakuntla Thukral vs. CIT (366 ITR 644). 4. Ld CIT(A), however, deleted addition by following host of case laws stated in his order. With regard to decision rendered by Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Smt. Shakuntla Thukral (supra), which was relied upon by AO, Ld CIT(A) held that facts in above said case is different and hence AO cannot take support of same. In effect, Ld CIT(A) accepted contentions of assessee that assessee has put higher value to stock quantity. Further, Ld CIT(A) observed that theAO has not pointed out any discrepancy in books with reference to purchase, sale or closing stock. Accordingly he deleted addition. 5. Ld CIT-DR submitted that Ld CIT(A) has overlooked decision rendered by Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of M/s B.T Steels Ltd vs. CIT (ITA No.186 of 2004). He further submitted that Ld CIT(A) has not properly appreciated decision rendered by Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Shakuntla Thukral (supra). Ld CIT-DR further submitted that addition of difference between book stock and bank stock was 3 ITA No. 75/Asr/2017 (AY 2012-13) ITO v. M. S. Foods Pvt. Ltd. upheld by Hon ble Calcutta High Court in case of Binod Kumar Agarwala vs. CIT (ITAT No.22 of 2015 dated 21-06-2018). 6. We heard Ld D.R and perused record. From assessment order, we notice that there is no difference in quantity of Paddy-Permal, Rice-Permal shown in book and in bank statement. In respect of Paddy-1121, book stock was shown at 26,517 quintals and in bank statement, it was shown at 27,090 quintals, i.e., 523 quintals are shown in excess in statement furnished to bank. On contrary, in respect of Rice -1121, book stock was shown at 1539 quintals, while it was shown at 1185 quintals in bank statement, i.e., there is deficit of 354 quintals. above said differences almost offset with each other. However value of Bardana was shown at Rs.29.95 lakhs in book, while same is shown at Rs.143.49 lakhs in bank statement. As observed by Ld CIT(A), assessee has inflated rates of each of item for bank purposes. 7. Hence, what is required to be seen is to verify as to whether rates adopted for valuing various items of stock for book purposes is correct or not. If value adopted for book purposes is found to be correct, then value taken for bank purposes should be ignored. value for book purposes can be ascertained from purchase value of various items. We notice that both tax authorities have not carried out said exercise, which would have brought truth about value adopted for bank purposes. We notice that AO has added difference without examining same critically and Ld CIT(A) has granted relief without giving finding that value adopted for bank purposes is inflated. Under these circumstances, in our view, this issue requires fresh examination at end of AO. Accordingly, we set aside order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore 4 ITA No. 75/Asr/2017 (AY 2012-13) ITO v. M. S. Foods Pvt. Ltd. same to file of AO for examining it afresh in light of discussions made supra. 8. In result, appeal of revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on August 22, 2019 Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. Choudhry) (B. R. Baskaran) Judicial Member Accountant Member Date: 22.08.2019 /GP/Sr. Ps. Copy of order forwarded to: (1) Appellant: (2) Respondent: (3) CIT(Appeals) (4) CIT concerned (5) Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Ferozepur v. M. S. Foods Pvt. Ltd