https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61171 An addition for alleged closing stock difference could not be sustained where the stock statement filed to the bank related to an earlier date and the overdraft account was secured by hypothecation, not pledge. The first appellate authority accepted the assessee's explanation that no separate stock statement was filed for the intervening days, and the bank statement therefore did not prove any unexplained discrepancy in the books. The absence of minute details of sales during that period did not displace the core factual finding that the stock position shown to the bank had remained unchanged for the relevant comparison. The deletion of the addition was upheld. en-us Sat, 27 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:57:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61171 An addition for alleged closing stock difference could not be sustained where the stock statement filed to the bank related to an earlier date and the overdraft account was secured by hypothecation, not pledge. The first appellate authority accepted the assessee's explanation that no separate stock statement was filed for the intervening days, and the bank statement therefore did not prove any unexplained discrepancy in the books. The absence of minute details of sales during that period did not displace the core factual finding that the stock position shown to the bank had remained unchanged for the relevant comparison. The deletion of the addition was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 27 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61171