High Court of Punjab and Haryana · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak v. Sant Ram Mangat Ram, Ambala City
ITR 181/1989 ·
Closing-stock valuation reference follows earlier assessment year
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
ITR181/1989 concerned AY1982–83 and the Tribunal’s 8 March 1989 order. The referred questions asked whether the ad hoc stock-valuation method was recognised and whether deletion of Rs.1,08,716 for alleged undervaluation of closing gold and silver stock was justified. The Tribunal had followed its decision for AY1981–82.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
Revenue’s counsel acknowledged that the earlier-year reference, ITR182/1989, had been decided against Revenue on 3 January 2005. The Court followed its earlier view in the same assessee’s case. This two-page judgment does not reproduce the earlier judgment’s accounting analysis.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The reference was answered against Revenue and in favour of the assessee, following the earlier-year decision.
4. OUTCOME
Assessee-favourable final answer on the referred stock-valuation questions for AY1982–83. The source establishes the result and its reliance on ITR182/1989, but does not independently explain the valuation method.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.
Locate the reasoning in the incorporated precedent
The Court followed its 3 January 2005 decision in ITR182/1989 for AY1981–82. This establishes how the present reference was resolved, but a practitioner asserting a general accounting proposition should obtain that earlier judgment and compare the valuation facts. The question’s reference to an ad hoc method is not itself a full explanation of the method.
Keep years and amounts attached to their proceedings
Rs.1,08,716 is the closing-stock addition questioned for AY1982–83 in ITR181/1989. The earlier AY1981–82 reference supplies the precedent; it is not the same proceeding. Retaining both identities avoids treating successive-year litigation as duplicate records.
Source and verification
Complete source PDF reviewed: 2 physical pages.
Original PDF: 2 pages · SHA-256: 4e5903ce0badf90736cdc500769867073247e1cc6f2f11431a59f85144bfbe6d
All 2 original pages read and visually inspected; source hash verified. AI-assisted substantive correction.
Sections and disposition are recorded only to the extent stated in this source order.
Subsequent treatment not independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. The Expert Comments section is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding.
