TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Appeals) holding that the difference between the stock value shown in the books of account of the assessee and value disclosed to the bank was not assessable to tax as deemed income ? (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for granting renewal of registration to the firm ?" 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The assesses/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") was a resident having the status of unregistered firm and the accounting period ending with March 31, 1981, and March, 31, 1982, respectively, for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, was originally assessed under section 143(1) which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he balance-sheet submitted to the Department, the assessee showed closing stock respectively of Rs. 12,325 and Rs. 4,521 for the assessment year 1981-82 and Rs. 18,381 and Rs. 2,815 for the assessment year 1982-83. Thus, the Assessing Officer found an excess stock of Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 21,117 respectively for the assessment year 1981-82 and Rs. 45,319 and Rs. 21,546 for the assessment year 1982-83. The explanation of the assessee was that the inflated figure in the balance-sheet and profit and loss account was to get the bank credit facility. The Assessing Officer rejected such explanation by viewing that once the assessee had shown himself excess stock in the balance-sheet submitted to the bank, there was no reason as to why the lesser sto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertified the stock available with the assessee nor even the Assessing Officer has gone to that extent to device and find out the measure to establish that the assessee did have the balance of stock of harrow and chaff cutter as shown in the alleged inflated figures of these two items submitted to the bank. He was convinced that there was no reason to disregard the version of the assessee as the physical presence and accounting of stock was neither certified nor was established. Consequently, he viewed that the assessee could not be fastened only for the reason that he had done certain scribblings which were not in support of any evidence that the assessee had really left with that much stock of harrow and chaff cutter. It is also opined by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcumstances of the case in the light of the submissions made before us and after a perusal of the relevant pages of the paper book highlighted by the parties concerned as referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the case law cited by the Revenue are distinguishable as urged by the assessee, in the instant case and further that we are also convinced with the reasonings assigned by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for coming to the conclusion of giving relief by deleting this addition in question. In this view of the matter, we sustain the order impugned in this regard." 6. We have heard Sri R. K. Upadhayay, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. No one appears on behalf of the assessee. 7. We h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-tax Officer gathered information from the bank about the goods pledged and found that the goods pledged with the bank were in excess of the stock as per books and rejected the books. Discrepancies found was not only in respect of valuation of goods but also in respect of quantum thereof. The explanation given by the assessee with regard to the discrepancies were not accepted. In reference, the Division Bench of this court has held that the finding of the Tribunal was a finding of fact, which could not be questioned in the reference. Reliance placed by learned standing counsel on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Dhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 192 is also not applicable. In this case, the Income-tax Officer f....