TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o further addition was called for since the assessee had also disclosed a higher valuation of the closing stock and thereby higher profit when there was no difference in the quantitative tally - Tribunal specifically held that it was wrong on the part of the Commissioner to observe that purchase worth Rs1,13,33,251/- was neither made by the assessee nor declared by it. It was specifically mentioned that the assessee had shown sales to the extent of Rs.36,41,22,261.98 in the Profit and Loss Account for the period ended on 31.03.1998 and the details of the sales also clearly included the sale of silver worth Rs.1,41,77,590/-. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the observation of the Commissioner that there was no sale of the purchased silve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court in ITA 166/2000 titled 'CIT v Shri Ram Honda Power Equipments on 12.01.2007. The said decision has since been reported in 289 ITR, 475 (Del). Consequently, this Court noted in its order dated 04.04.2007 that question 'B' as proposed by the Revenue had already been answered and the matter was, thereafter, listed for admission with regard to questions 'A', 'C' and 'D'. The matter has been taken up from time to time. We have now heard counsel for the parties on the proposed questions A, C and D. 3. Proposed question 'C' pertains to the issue of interest of Rs18,53,916/-, which was paid by the assessee to the bank and had been disallowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal in the paper book at pages 142-156, which would go to indicate that the amounts advanced from time to time were in the course of business and that there was no practice between Damas Jewels and the assessee for paying/charging interest on the inter-party outstanding balances. With regard to the transactions with Lal Jewels, it was submitted that the assessee had been advancing funds and/or receiving funds from the said Lal Jewels intermittently during the year in question and on which no interest was charged by either party. He submitted that the non-charging of interest was on account of commercial expediency. It was submitted that the interest, if payable, to Lal Jewels would be Rs4,59,502/- as against the interest receivable from Lal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Tribunal, being the final fact finding authority, has the final say in the matter. No perversity was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue in the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. Consequently, proposed question 'C' does not arise for the consideration of this Court inasmuch as it is not a substantial question of law. 5. With regard to the proposed question 'D', we find that it comprises of two parts: One part deals with the excess stock amounting to Rs.9,59,425/- and the other part pertains to the alleged shortage of stock amounting to Rs.88,26,126/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax, on the basis of the said alleged excess stock and shortage of stock had made additions, which the Tribunal has deleted. The alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , though there was no difference in quantitative terms. 8. Insofar as the first difference is concerned, the lowering of the valuation of the closing stock for the assessment year 1997-98 has been set-aside by the Tribunal and the same has been accepted by this Court by virtue of the order dated 17.03.2008 in ITA 2/2005. Consequently, we find that there was no material before the Commissioner to employ a lower rate for diamonds in the closing stock. In any event the assessee had disclosed a higher valuation of stock, which would ultimately lead to a higher profit. Consequently, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that no further addition was called for since the assessee had also disclosed a higher valuation of the closing stock and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been made by the Commissioner. This conclusion of the Tribunal is also based purely on facts. No perversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Obviously, no question of law, what we speak of a substantial question of law, can arise for our consideration. In this view of the matter, even proposed question 'D' does not require any further consideration of this Court. 10. This leaves us with the proposed question 'A'. However, we feel that in the view of our decision with regard to proposed questions 'C' and 'D', proposed question 'A' would be of academic interest and would, consequently not be a substantial question of law arising in this case. 11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
