Stock suppression findings and commodity-specific evidence justified different tax treatment, with revisional interference declined.

Concurrent factual findings on stock suppression based on physical verification were not interfered with in revision because the assessee produced no contra material, so the addition relating to marbles, cuddapah stones and granites was sustained. The separate deletion of addition for ceramic tiles was upheld because it rested on a specific document and a plausible explanation accepted on the evidence, and that reasoning could not be extended automatically to other commodities. The revisional challenge therefore failed, and the assessment findings and additions remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the finding of stock suppression based on physical verification and the consequent addition in respect of marbles, cuddapah stones and granites called for interference in revision. (ii) Whether the separate treatment accorded to ceramic tiles, on the basis of documentary explanation and evidence, required a uniform conclusion for all commodities.

Issue (i): Whether the finding of stock suppression based on physical verification and the consequent addition in respect of marbles, cuddapah stones and granites called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The authorities below recorded a factual finding that the stock was physically verified and that there was suppression to the extent reflected in the assessment and appellate orders. The revision petitioner did not produce contra material to dislodge that finding. In revision, the Court found no basis to reappreciate the evidence or disturb the factual conclusion reached by the fact-finding authorities.

Conclusion: The finding of suppression and the related addition in respect of marbles, cuddapah stones and granites were upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the separate treatment accorded to ceramic tiles, on the basis of documentary explanation and evidence, required a uniform conclusion for all commodities.

Analysis: The deletion of addition for ceramic tiles rested on a specific document and a plausible explanation accepted by the appellate authority. The Court held that where different commodities are supported by different explanations and evidence, there is no requirement of a uniform result across all items. The reasoning accepted for ceramic tiles could not automatically be extended to the other commodities.

Conclusion: The differential treatment of ceramic tiles and the other goods was held to be justified, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on all substantial questions of law, and the assessment-related findings and additions sustained by the authorities below were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings on stock suppression, supported by physical verification and evidence, will not be interfered with in revision absent contra material, and a commodity-specific evidentiary basis can justify different tax treatment for different items.

---