MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES, KOTA V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

ITA 432/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6263 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA CIT DR DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: C M BIRLA
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 132; 15

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 432/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 M/S. MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES 16, JHALAWAR ROAD, KOTA CUKE VS. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AAHFM 4225 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI C.M. BIRLA, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY:SHRI VARINDER MEHTA, CIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/06/2018 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/06/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-4, JAIPUR DATED 1-02-2018 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2014-15 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT F.Y. 2013- 14 BEING THE SEARCH YEAR THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) R.W.S.S 153A FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2014-15 WAS BEYOND LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE AO AND THEREFORE, ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BASED ON THIS ILLEGAL NOTICE BEING VOID THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1) DESERVES ANNULMENT. ITA NO.432/JP/2018 MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOT A 2 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GOA 1 ABOVE (I) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 5,39,033/- ON 13-08-2013 (DATE OF SEARCH) IGNORING EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THAT IT I S SUPPORTED BY SOFTWARE TALLY SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 TO 2014-15 (DATE OF SEARCH) AS WELL AS PURC HASE BILLS; AND (II) THE LD. CIT(A) FUR9RTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THIS FACT THAT STOCK SHEETS WERE PREPARED BY SEARCH TEAM NOT BEFORE PARTNERS OF FIRM BUT IN PRESENCE OF EMPLOYEE S OF FIRM WHO WERE NOT AWARE OF PURCHASE COST AND THEREF ORE, THEY HAD GIVEN PRICE QUA SALES PRICE LESS REASONABL E PROFIT AS PER THEIR WISDOM. 2.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- 3. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT DERIVES ITS INCOME FROM BUYING AND SELLING OF MARBL E STONE AND GRANITE. APPELLANT FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 28-11-2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 DECLARING TOTAL INC OME AT RS. 22,230/- APPELLANT BELONGS TO MUNDRA GROUP, KOTA ON WHOSE PREMISES, A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED O UT ON 13- 08-2013. VARIOUS ASSETS/BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DOCUM ENTS WERE FOUND, INVENTORIZED AND SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE PREPARED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. PURSUANT TO T HIS, AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 142(1) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT T O THE APPELLANT, IN COMPLIANCE OF WHICH, APPELLANT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 19-01-2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 27,190/-. FINALLY, AO COMPLETE D ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 29-01-2016 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,66,220/ -. 4. ITA NO.432/JP/2018 MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOT A 3 5. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN A LEGAL GROUND THAT SINCE NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED TO HIM FOR THE INS TANT A.YR. THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE QUASHED. THE APPELLANT HAS CITED SEC 153A TO STATE THAT FOR THIS A. YR. NOTICE CANNOT BE ISSUED. I HAVE PERUSED THE GROUND AND SUBMISSION MADE. I AM OF THE VIEW, THOUGH NOTICE U/S 153A NEED NOT BE ISSUED FOR THE INSTANT A.YR. BEING SEARCH ASSESSMEN T YEAR (DATE OF SEARCH BEING 13-08-2013), IT DOES NOT CAUS E ANY PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, ADMITTEDLY NO DISPUTE, LEGAL OR PROCEDURAL, IS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT EIT HER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE ME REGARDING COMPLETION OF ASSESSM ENT U/S 143(3). I MAY POINT OUT AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 14 3(2) BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. MERELY ISSUE OF NO TICE U/S 153A AND MENTIONING OF SAME IN THE TOP HEADER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT VITIATE THE ENTIRE ORDER. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE, IN MY VIEW T HE LEGAL OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT DESERVES TO BE DI SMISSED. APPELLANTS APPEAL IN GROUND NO. 1 IS DISMISSED 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR QUASHING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR WHICH THE LD.A R OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION. BEFORE WE PROCEED FURTHER WE SUBMIT SEC.153A HAS BE EN AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2017 W.E.F. 01.04.2017. BECAUSE OF AMENDMENT IN SECTION 153A(1)(A), 153A(1)(B), ITS THREE PROVISOS, SECTION 153B AND 153C AFTER SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS -AND FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS- IS INSERTED. WE HOWEVER SUBMIT THIS AMENDMENT IS EFFECTIVE FROM 01.04.2017; IT DOES APPLY WHERE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T IS INITIATED OR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2017 AND IT APPLIES TO ASSESSMENT YEARS PRECEDING TO SEARCH YEARS ONLY. ITA NO.432/JP/2018 MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOT A 4 THOUGH THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THAT THIS AS S.YEAR BEING SEARCH YEAR THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 153A BUT TO HIM AS IT HAS NOT CAUSED ANY PREJUDICE TO ASSESSEE AND AS THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) BEFORE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) IS FINALIZED MERELY IS SUE OF NOTICE U/S 153A AND MENTIONING OF SAME IN THE TOP HEADER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT VITIATE THE ENTIRE ORDER. WE SUBMIT HONBLE CIT(A) FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THAT THERE ARE PLETHORA OF JUDGMENTS WHEREIN BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE U/S 143(2) ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ARE VITIATED. IN CIRCUMSTANCES AKIN TO US HONBLE CHANDIGARH BENC H IN RAJEEV KUMAR VS. ACIT (2017) 186 TTJ 522 RELYING ON DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN UPENDRA KUMARA SHARMA VS DCIT, CIRCLE 9(1) (ITA NO.3141/DEL/09 DATED 12.04.2010) HAVE QUASHED ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE MAY ADD THAT DECISION OF HONBLE CHANDIGARH BENCH (SUPRA) DOES ANSWER DOUBTS RAISED BY HONBLE CIT(A) ALSO. WE THEREFORE SUBMIT ASSESSMENT ORDER BE QUASHED. 2.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 2.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IMPERATIVE TO REPEAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ELA BORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN HIS ORDER. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTED THAT ON TH E SIMILAR ISSUE THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV KUAMR VS ACI T (2017) 186 TTJ 522 RELYING ON DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF UPENDRA KUMAR SHARMA VS DCIT CIRCLE 9(1) (ITA NO.3141/DEL /09 DATED 12-04- 2010) HAS QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE RELEVA NT OBSERVATION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IS AS UNDER:- 11..IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT AN ASSESSMENT IS TO BE FRAMED FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH PRECEDES THE ASSESSMENT YEA R. THEREFORE, FOR ITA NO.432/JP/2018 MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOT A 5 THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08, THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR SUCCEEDS THE PERIOD OF SEARCH AND N OT PRECEDES. FROM THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN C L. (B) OF SUB-S(1) OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT COULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED FOR THE 6 AS SESSMENT YEARS WHICH PRECEDES THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THEREFO RE, WE ARE OF THE CONFIRMED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 15 3A OF THE ACT COULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 01-02 TO 2006- 07 ONLY AND NOT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. AS THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FRA MED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THIS ASSE SSMENT WAS NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW AND OF INITIO. THUS THE SA ME IS QUASHED. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER CONSIDER ATION CONSIDERING THE SAME AS INVALID, NO FINDINGS ARE GIVEN ON OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIG ARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV KUMAR VS ACIT (SUPRA), IT IS NOTED T HAT THE LEGAL OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS M ERIT AND WE CONCUR WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS GROUND N O. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 2 (I AND II) OF THE ASSESSEE , THE FACTS AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UND ER:- 6. WITH REFERENCE TO GROUND NO. 2, IT IS SEE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE CONCERN OF APPELLANT M/S. MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES, INVENTORY OF THE STOCK WAS PREPARED AND TH E POSITION OF STOCK WAS WORKED OUT HEREIN AS UNDER:- TOTAL STOCK AS PER INVENTORY PREPARED RS. 41,13,947 /- STOCK AS PER BOOKS RS. 35,74,974/- EXCESS STOCK RS. 5,39,033/- ITA NO.432/JP/2018 MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOT A 6 THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,39,033/-. AFTER EXAM INING THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND DISCUSSION MADE, AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO SUBSTAN TIATE THAT THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND AT HIS PREMISES WAS ON ACCOU NT OF SALE PRICE TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. AN ADDITION OF RS. 5 ,39,033/- WAS MADE IN THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S 69B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND. 7. 8. I HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND ORDER OF THE AO MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 5,39,033/- O N ACCOUNT OF STOCK DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOOKS AND FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. CONTENTION OF APPELLANT THAT EMPLOYEE PRESENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ARE NOT AWARE O F COST AND THEY QUOTE SALE PRICE HAS NO MERITS AS THE VALUATIO N OF STOCK WAS DONE IN PRESENCE OF 2 INDEPENDENT WITNESSES AND NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE AO HAS ALREADY FACTUALLY REJE CTED THE CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT IN HIS ORDER IN PARA6.3 WH ICH MAY BE REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE. 6.3 I HAVE EXAMINED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS NOT FOUND TENABLE. THE FOLLOWING FACTS NEEDS SPECIAL MENTION IN THIS REGAR D. (I) PERSONS WORKING IN THE ASSESSEE CONCERN WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF PREPARING PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF THE STOCK. (II) THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF REGISTER/BILLS THAT COULD PROVE THAT THE VALUE TAKEN OF THE INVENTORIES / STOCK OF THE CONCERN IS TAKEN BY THE SEARCH TEAM WAS SALE PRICE. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALE PRICE WERE TAKEN IN THE INVENTORIES PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS GENUINE, THE SAME COULD BE ARRIVED AFTER ADOPTING GP RATE OF AROUND 29% CONSISTENTLY DECLARED BY THE ITA NO.432/JP/2018 MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOT A 7 ASSESSEE, THIS MEANS THE STOCK AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF THE INVENTORIES IS OF RS. 46,56,050/- [36,09,341+10,46,709(36,09,341X29%)] ON SALE PRICE BASIS. THUS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE INVENTORIES PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS ON SALE PRICE IS NOT HAVE ANY TRUTH. (III) FURTHER THE DETAILS OF STOCK / INVENTORIES FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IS IN A SUMMARY MANNER WHEREAS THE INVENTORIES PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS IN DETAILED MANNER I FIND THAT AO HAS FACTUALLY REBUTTED THE SUBMISSIO N MADE FOR THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND. ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN MY VIEW FINDINGS OF T HE AO DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. THE GROUND RAISE D IS DISMISSED. 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,39,033/- AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THIS FACT THAT STOCK SHEETS WERE PREPARED BY SEARCH TEM NOT BEFORE THE P ARTNERS OF THE FIRM BUT IN PRESENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF FIRM AS THEY WERE NOT A WARE OF THE PURCHASE COST. TO THIS EFFECT, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FIL ED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION. (I) OURS IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHEREIN 2 FAMILIES ARE INVOLVED. ITA NO.432/JP/2018 MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOT A 8 (II) WE ARE DEALING IN MARBLE AND GRANITE. IN THIS BUSINESS THERE IS EVERY POSSIBILITY OF TIME GAP OF 4-5 YEARS AND EVEN MORE IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF A PART OF STOCK. (III) THERE IS NO DENIAL TO THIS FACT BY LOWER AUTH ORITIES THAT SINCE INCEPTION OF FIRM VALUATION OF INVENTORY IS TAKEN B Y US ON AVERAGE COST METHOD / WEIGHTED COST METHOD WHICH IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD APPROVED BY ICAI ALSO IN AS-2 ACCOUNTING STANDARD-2 VAL UATION OF INVENTORIES. (IV) IT IS TRUE THAT INVENTORY WAS TAKEN BY SEARCH TEAM IN PRESENCE OF OUR EMPLOYEES WHICH WE ARE NOT DENYING. WE ARE N OT DENYING QUANTITY ALSO WHEREIN LEARNED AO IS ALSO NOT FINDIN G ANY DEFICIENCY. OUR ONLY OBJECTION IS TO THE RATE. SINCE INCEPTION OF FIRM WE ARE VALUING INVENTORY ON AVERAGE COST METHOD/WEIGHTED C OST PRICE WHICH IS VERIFIABLE FROM STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS APPE NDED TO ROI ALSO. IN VIEW OF DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN UCO BANK VS CIT (1999) 156 CTR 380 A METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADO PTED BY THE TAXPAYER CONSISTENTLY AND REGULARLY CANNOT BE DISCA RDED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES ON THE VIEW THAT HE SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED A DIFFERENT METHOD OF KEEPING ACCOUNTS OR OF VALUATIO N. (V) IN VIEW OF AFORESAID FACTS AND DECISION OF HON BLE APEX COURT (SUPRA) AS SAME METHOD OF VALUATION OF INVENT ORY IS FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY SINCE INCEPTION OF FIRM WE SUBMIT THE SAME BE NOT INTERFERED AND ADDITION OF RS.539033/- BE DELETED. 3.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 3.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND DEALS IN THE BUSINESS OF MARBLE AND GRANITE. THE ISSUE IN QUESTI ON IS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INVENTORY OF STOCK WAS TAKEN BY SE ARCH TEAM IN PRESENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RATE QUOTED BY TH E EMPLOYEES WAS SALES ITA NO.432/JP/2018 MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOT A 9 PRICE AND THE EMPLOYEES WERE NOT AWARE OF THE PURCH ASE COST OF THE MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE IS TAKING THE VALUATION OF T HE STOCK QUA WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT SINCE INCEPTION OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS VALUING INVENTORY ON AVERAGE COST METHOD/WEIGHTED COST PRICE WHICH IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE STATEMENT O F ACCOUNTS APPENDED TO RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK VS (1 999) 156 CTR 380 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT A METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADO PTED BY THE TAXPAYER CONSISTENTLY AND REGULARLY CANNOT BE DISCARDED BY T HE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES ON THE VIEW THAT HE SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED A DIFFERENT METHOD OF KEEPING ACCOUNTS OR OF VALUATION. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS HAS ADOPTED THE VALUATION OF INVENTORY ON AVERAGE C OST METHOD / WEIGHTED COST WHICH IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD APPROVED BY ICAI IN AS-2ACCOUNTING STANDARD-2 VALUATION OF INVENTORIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE COPY OF INVENTORY OF STOCK TAKEN BY SEARCH TEAM CON TAINING PAGES 18 TO 26 ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK VS CIT (SUPRA), IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS M ERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE CONCUR WITH THE SAME. THUS GROU ND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.432/JP/2018 MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOT A 10 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25-06-2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO HKKXPUN (VIJAY PAL RAO) ( BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25 /06/ 2018 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S. MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES, KOTA 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.432 /JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR