https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17401 Concurrent factual findings accepted the taxpayer's explanation that the disputed closing stock represented damaged goods, and the record supported the claim that the goods were prone to damage. On that basis, the addition for alleged suppression of closing stock was deleted. Since both the first appellate authority and the Tribunal had accepted the same factual explanation, no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter for further verification of bank officers' records, and remand was therefore found unnecessary. en-us Wed, 03 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:11:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17401 Concurrent factual findings accepted the taxpayer's explanation that the disputed closing stock represented damaged goods, and the record supported the claim that the goods were prone to damage. On that basis, the addition for alleged suppression of closing stock was deleted. Since both the first appellate authority and the Tribunal had accepted the same factual explanation, no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter for further verification of bank officers' records, and remand was therefore found unnecessary. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17401