Tribunal restricts interest disallowance, upholds stock discrepancy addition.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the addition of Rs. 2,60,020 due to a stock discrepancy but restricting the disallowance of interest to one percent of the total exempt income. The decision was based on the absence of a stock register and unreliable explanations provided by the assessee. The Tribunal referenced relevant cases to support its decision, emphasizing that practices aimed at inflating stock for obtaining higher loans cannot be accepted judicially.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition due to difference in stock as per books of account and stock statement submitted to the bank.
2. Disallowance of interest incurred for the appellant's business.

Issue 1: Addition due to Difference in Stock

The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 2,60,020 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to a discrepancy between the stock as per the books of account and the stock statement submitted to the bank. The assessee argued that the difference was due to goods in transit and cash sales, which were not reflected correctly. The AO rejected this explanation due to the absence of a stock book and added the difference to the total income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this addition, noting that the assessee failed to produce the stock register and that the explanations provided were not reliable. The Tribunal also found the explanations unconvincing and upheld the addition, citing that the figures did not reconcile even after considering the assessee's arguments. The Tribunal referenced several cases, including Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. v. CIT and Ramanlal Kacharulal Tejmal v. CIT, to support the decision that the practice of showing larger stock to obtain higher loans cannot be judicially recognized.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Interest

The second issue was the disallowance of Rs. 94,244 attributed to investments resulting in exempt income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed this disallowance, stating that the investments were not made out of the assessee's own funds. The assessee referenced the decision of the Tribunal in Deputy CIT v. Bush Tea & P. Ltd., suggesting that disallowance should be limited to one percent of the total exempt income, a practice consistently followed by the Kolkata Benches. The Tribunal agreed with this argument and restricted the disallowance to one percent of the total exempt income, following the Mumbai High Court's judgment in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, which stated that rule 8D would apply prospectively from the assessment year 2008-09.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 2,60,020 due to the discrepancy in stock but restricted the disallowance of interest to one percent of the total exempt income. The order was pronounced in the open court on August 9, 2011.

---