bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1673 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Premier Finance and Trading Co.Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr.D.K.Shivraj with Mr.A.R.Singh for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. So far as first question is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding which reads as under: “Therefore, we agree with the finding of the CIT(A) that the method of valuation of closing stock followed by the assessee i.e. ‘lower of weighted average cost or market value’ is a scientific and generally accepted method prescribed by the accounting standards. In this view of the matter, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Thus, the ground Nos.1 to 4 raised by the revenue are rejected. 3. So far as second question is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded its finding in paragraph No.11 of its order which reads as under: “On perusal of the same, we find that the CIT(A) for the A.Y.1998-99 had followed the order of his predecessor in the year 1999-2000 and confirmed the proportionate disallowance of Rs.2,75,06,168/- and the Tribunal had confirmed the order of CIT(A). In view of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and the said order of CIT(A) is therefore confirmed. Hence, this ground of appeal raised by the revenue is rejected. 4. So far as third question is concerned, the Tribunal has followed its own order for the year 1997-98. The Learned Counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the same. Under these circumstances, the appeal is without any substance. The same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)