Final fact-finding authority findings on genuineness and stock discrepancy will not be disturbed absent perversity.

The article discusses how the High Court treated challenges to a Tribunal's factual findings on alleged non-genuine sales of raw hides and skins and on stock variation found during inspection. The Tribunal had inferred that the alleged sales were not real because there was no payment, tanning charges were borne by the assessee, and the processed skins were later repurchased, indicating retention of ownership. It also rejected the stock explanation as unsupported by records. The governing principle stated is that findings of the final fact-finding authority on genuineness and stock discrepancy will not be interfered with unless they are perverse.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the alleged sale of raw hides and skins to seven registered dealers as a non-genuine transaction and restoring the assessment and penalty. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition based on stock variation noticed at inspection and rejecting the explanation regarding inflated stock shown to the bank for credit facilities.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the alleged sale of raw hides and skins to seven registered dealers as a non-genuine transaction and restoring the assessment and penalty.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether there was an actual transfer of property in the raw skins and whether the surrounding circumstances supported a real sale. The Tribunal relied on the absence of payment, the assessee's payment of tanning charges, and the subsequent purchase of wet blue skins after tanning to infer that title and ownership remained with the assessee and that the alleged sales were only a device to avoid treatment as the last purchaser.

Conclusion: The finding that the alleged sales were not genuine was one of fact and did not warrant interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition based on stock variation noticed at inspection and rejecting the explanation regarding inflated stock shown to the bank for credit facilities.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the explanation for the stock discrepancy was unsupported by records and therefore unacceptable. The assessment was restored on the footing that the stock variation represented actual suppression detected during inspection.

Conclusion: The finding on stock variation was also one of fact and did not give rise to any question of law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because both challenges rested on factual findings of the Tribunal, and no ground for judicial interference was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Findings of the final fact-finding authority will not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse; disputes turning purely on factual appreciation do not ordinarily justify interference.

---