JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE assessee filed its return of income for the asst. year 1991 92. It declared a loss of Rs. 7,52,53,863. On 7th Dec., 1992, the AO completed the assessment and made an addition of Rs. 10,63,977 on account of the revaluation of the closing stock. This addition was made on the hypothesis that the valuation of the closing stock had to be done on the basis of the average price for the month of March, 1991. Thus, the final figure of loss was fixed at Rs. 7,37,64,371. This addition was affirmed by the CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim with the following observations : "5. I have gone through the order of the learned CIT(A) and the authorities below. The appellant is consistently following average sale price of the year and not of the month of March. We do not find any infirmity in the method adopted by the appellant. More so, no benefit of enhancement value of closing stock has been given in the subsequent year. We, therefore, find no justification in the addition on account of valuation of closing stock." Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue has now filed this appeal under S. 260A of the IT Act, 1961.
(2.) MR . Sawhney, learned counsel for the Revenue, contends that the value of the closing stock had to be fixed on the basis of an average sale price for the month of March, 1991. This was Rs. 763.51. The assessee had fixed the value of the stock at Rs. 753.83 per bag. The method adopted by the assessee was illegal. Thus, the addition was validly made. The Tribunal has erred in accepting the assessee's claim. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the respondent assessee had followed a consistent practice of fixing the value of the stock on the basis of the average price for the assessment year. This practice had been accepted by the Revenue. It has been further found that despite having made an addition of more than Rs. 7,00,000 in the value of the stock in hand, no corresponding benefit was given by the Revenue to the assessee for the asst. year 1992 93. This factual position has not been disputed. However, it has been contended that the assessee having not claimed the benefit, it was not entitled to make a grievance on that account.
(3.) WE think that the plea is untenable. If the assessee had claimed the benefit, the Revenue would have contended before the Tribunal that the assessee has accepted the addition. Otherwise, the Revenue does not give the benefit. So, it wants the best of both the sides. Still further, it appears to us that the Revenue is only trying to fiddle with the figures. In fact, the addition to the value of the stock in hand has not resulted in any loss to the Revenue. The value which has been shown by the assessee has been carried forward to the next year. Thus, there is no loss of tax so far as the Revenue is concerned. In any case, the ultimate position is that the assessee has suffered loss.;