Radheshyam Agrawal and Co. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Applicant by Shri B.L. Nema. He is heard on the question of admission.

The aggrieved assessee has filed this application u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for short), for compelling a reference of questions of law suggested in paragraph 19 of the application.

The matter relates to the assessment year 1976-77, the relevant year being 1975-76. For the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee filed a return showing an income of Rs. 93,760. The assessment was made on an income of Rs. 1,59,948. In doing so, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 63,880 on account of undervaluation of closing stock. This is seen from the assessment order, annexure "A-1".

For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee filed a return showing an income of Rs. 7,790. The Assessing Officer made an assessment on a total income of Rs. 26,090 u/s 143(1) of the Act, after giving set-off for the sum of Rs. 63,880, added in the earlier year, as seen from annexure "A-2", copy of the assessment order. The Commissioner took up the matter in suo motu revision and set aside the order on the ground that it was prejudicial to the Revenue and gave appropriate directions to the Assessing Officer who subsequently passed an assessment order making an addition of Rs. 37,146 on account of undervaluation of the closing stock of Bidi Patta Account, as seen in annexure "A-4".

The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner who dismissed the same. The second appeal to the Tribunal proved unsuccessful. The Tribunal also declined to make any reference.

Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in computing the value of the closing balance for the year 1976-77 and the profit for the year, the Assessing Officer ignored the value of the opening balance for the year and, therefore, this has vitiated the assessment. For both the years, the Assessing Officer did not make fresh calculation on his own. He started with the profit and loss account and the profit disclosed by the profit and loss account and made additions. For the assessment year 1975-76, he found the closing balance not properly valued and found the difference between the correct value and the value shown as Rs. 63,880 and added this to the income and arrived at the profit. In other words, what he did was to start with the profit and loss account and make an addition as representing the discrepancy in valuation of the closing stock. This would necessarily mean that he had accepted the valuation of the opening balance for the year 1975-76 as shown in the profit and loss account. The same method was followed for the succeeding year. He started with the profit and loss account of the assessee and made an addition towards the discrepancy in the valuation of the closing stock. The profit and loss account naturally reflects the opening balance for that year. Because of the enhancement of the closing balance for the earlier year, the Assessing Officer made appropriate change on that account. In other words, the Assessing Officer started with the opening balance for the year 1976-77, as found in the balance-sheet, and made an addition of Rs. 63,880. This would clearly indicate that the opening balance had not been ignored as contended by learned counsel for the applicant. The assessee has followed the cost method for valuation of opening and closing balances. The Assessing Officer has followed the same method. In these circumstances, we are unable to agree that any question of law, as suggested, arises for consideration.

The application is dismissed.