TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns stock addition under IT Act due to lack of corroborative evidence</h1> <h3>KP. Pan Masala Co. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Cen. Cir. 8, New Delhi.</h3> KP. Pan Masala Co. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Cen. Cir. 8, New Delhi. - TMI Issues:Challenge to addition made under section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 based on stock variation during survey.Analysis:The case involved an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of Rs. 2,20,800 made under section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The appellant contested the action of the CIT(A) based on seven grounds. During a survey under section 133A of the I.T. Act, a discrepancy in the stock of supari was noted. The Assessing Officer added the value of 1920 kgs of supari as undisclosed investment in stock. The CIT(A) upheld this action, emphasizing the legal presumption under section 292C regarding documents found during a survey. The appellant's explanation that the stock was estimated by the excise department without weighment was deemed insufficient to rebut the presumption. The appellant's failure to provide cogent evidence led to the confirmation of the addition.The appellant argued that the addition was solely based on a loose sheet found during the survey, lacking corroborative evidence. It was contended that the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account, and the stock discrepancy was not adequately supported. The appellant cited previous court decisions to support their case. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' decisions and referred to a Gujarat High Court case regarding the presumption under section 292C based on material recovered during a search.The Tribunal considered the arguments and evidence presented. As the books of account were not rejected, the entries therein were deemed correct. The closing stock for the previous year had been accepted by the department, supporting the appellant's claim regarding the opening stock. Due to the lack of corroborative evidence for the loose seized document entry, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the deletion of the addition made under section 69. The appeal was allowed, overturning the lower authorities' decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the appellant, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence and the acceptance of entries in books of account when not rejected by the authorities. The legal presumption under section 292C was a key factor in assessing the appellant's explanation and evidence in the case.
TaxTMI 