Stock discrepancy additions and penalty upheld as factual explanations and records addressed the alleged mismatch.

An assessment based on alleged stock discrepancy and purchase suppression was not interfered with because the dispute turned on factual issues about stock verification, the genuineness of bought-note vouchers, and whether goods of the dealer and sister concerns were stored together at the same premises. The Tribunal accepted the dealer's explanation that the records accounted for the alleged discrepancy, and the High Court noted that the assessment order contained infirmities and that the appellate authorities had already dealt with the issue. The deletion of the stock-based addition and the consequential penalty was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on the basis of alleged stock discrepancy and in setting aside the consequential penalty.

Analysis: The assessment arose from an inspection-based allegation of excess stock and purchase suppression. The first appellate authority had already modified the additions on the basis of the materials produced, while the Tribunal accepted the dealer's explanation that the goods of the dealer and its sister concerns were kept together at the same business premises and that the alleged discrepancy stood explained by the records. The High Court found that the Revenue's challenge turned on disputed facts, including the genuineness of bought-note vouchers and the manner in which the stock position was verified, and held that such factual questions could not be reopened in revision. It further noted that the assessment order itself suffered from infirmities and that the appellate authorities had already dealt with the alleged discrepancy.

Conclusion: The deletion of the stock-based addition and the consequent annulment of penalty were upheld, and no interference was called for.

---