https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333447 The Madras HC held that a revisional or appellate authority cannot restore a tax demand on stock variation by merely repeating the assessing officer's view. Where the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had accepted the stock reconciliation and the discrepancy was said to fall within the Government Order's tolerance, the Tribunal was required to independently examine the evidence and identify any error in the appellate findings. Because it did not displace those factual conclusions or give specific reasons showing them to be wrong, its order was unsustainable. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the assessee obtained relief. en-us Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:36:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333447 The Madras HC held that a revisional or appellate authority cannot restore a tax demand on stock variation by merely repeating the assessing officer's view. Where the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had accepted the stock reconciliation and the discrepancy was said to fall within the Government Order's tolerance, the Tribunal was required to independently examine the evidence and identify any error in the appellate findings. Because it did not displace those factual conclusions or give specific reasons showing them to be wrong, its order was unsustainable. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the assessee obtained relief. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333447