1 itxa3768-09 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3768 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. A. Lallubhai & Brothers ..Respondent. Mr. D.K. Kamwal for appellant. Mr. B.V. Jhaveri for respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. According to the Revenue, the following questions of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal dated 19/05/2009:- (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.93,82,857/- made by the assessing officer to the valuation of closing stock of polished diamonds without appreciating the findings of the assessing officer ? 2 itxa3768-09 (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessing officer was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts or the method of valuation of closing stock on the ground that the method of accounting has been accepted by the department in earlier year as well as in subsequent year, whereas the principle of res-judicata does not apply in income tax proceedings ? 2. Perusal of the order of ITAT reveals that the additions made by the assessing officer on account of polished diamonds has been deleted on the ground that the assessee has adduced evidence to show that the polished diamonds have been in fact exported by producing the supporting export documents. The Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that the method of accounting followed by the assessee was acceptable and in fact, the said method of account has been accepted by the Department not only in the earlier years but also accepted in the subsequent years. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there is no discrepancy in the books of account or in any purchase or in any sale was noticed. In these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal cannot said to give rise to any substantial questions of law. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)