- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, appearing for the IT Department. The questions sought to be raised for the purpose of this appeal are as follows : (1) Whether the non -mention of s. 145 in the order of the AO vitiates the action by the AO ? (2) Whether the question of undervaluation of the closing stock can be examined by the AO under the IT Act ? (3) Whether the valuation of closing stock and consequent return under the U.P. Trade Tax Act which has been accepted by the tax authorities is binding on the IT Department thereby debarring the IT authorities from scrutinising question of valuation of closing stock ?
(2.) WE have considered the impugned orders along with the above questions and we do not find any force in the appeal.
(3.) THE AO has passed the detailed order which has been accepted by the appellate authorities and mere non -mention of s. 145 does not vitiate the proceedings because the criteria set out in that section has already been met in the impugned orders. For the purpose of the second question raised above, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sadhuram Gordhandas vs. CIT (2002) 172 CTR (Guj) 201 : (2002) 253 ITR 695 (Guj). The Gujarat High Court in turn relies upon certain decisions of the Supreme Court, namely : (1) Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC) and (2) Sakthi Trading Co. vs. CIT (2001) 169 CTR (SC) 297 : (2001) 250 ITR 871 (SC).;