2001 (3) TMI 227 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal reduces addition due to stock discrepancies, highlights importance of stock statement

Income-Tax Officer. Versus Dilip K. Shah.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the addition to Rs. 64,960 from the initial Rs. 1,83,044 due to discrepancies in stock figures. The ... Income From House Property, Chargeable As Issues:Addition of Rs. 1,83,044 due to difference in stock as per books of account and statement to bank.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the addition of Rs. 1,83,044 to the income of the assessee due to a variance in stock figures as per the books of account and the statement provided to the bank. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and sale of quilt interlinings and filter padding, claimed that the difference was intentional to meet bank requirements. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) rejected this explanation and made the addition. The CIT(A) upheld the decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.The assessee contended that discrepancies were due to bank requirements and cited various High Court decisions to support the argument. The Department, however, supported the lower authorities' decision, emphasizing the lack of stock verification and specific figures provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted the burden on the assessee to prove the correctness of stock statements and the relevance of Evidence Act principles in income tax proceedings.The Tribunal referenced the Madras High Court's decision to emphasize the binding nature of the stock statement to the bank unless proven otherwise. It highlighted the absence of contrary High Court decisions and upheld the lower authorities' decision based on this principle. The Tribunal also analyzed various case laws cited by both parties to distinguish their applicability to the present case.Ultimately, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, modifying the addition to Rs. 64,960, which represented the peak amount of discrepancy. The decision was based on the principle that only the peak amount should be assessed, not the cumulative discrepancies. The Tribunal's ruling was a balance between the parties' contentions, acknowledging the binding nature of the stock statement while limiting the addition to the peak amount.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision provided a detailed analysis of the issues raised, considering legal principles, case laws, and the specific circumstances of the case to arrive at a balanced and reasoned judgment.