2007 (7) TMI 227 - HC - Income Tax

Cash credits - undisclosed income - Stock not tallying with stock calculated according to books of account identity of creditors nature & source of credit stood explained - Tribunal is justified in holding that amount of Rs. 13, 56, 000 has been deposited by the sons of assessee which was realized after selling the pilferage stocks outside the books of account entire case of AO is based on doubts without any evidence - no merit in the revenue s appeal - no substantial question of law arise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in ignoring the admitted facts regarding the availability of sale proceeds with the employee sons for introduction in the books.
2. Whether the statement given by the employee sons on cross-examination was a retraction of the admission made during their initial examination.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Availability of Sale Proceeds with Employee Sons
The Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 13,56,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while upholding other additions based on gross profit and agricultural income. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation that the shortfall in stock was due to sales outside the books was accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal reasoned that once the sale of goods was accepted, there was no justification to reject the corresponding sales realization. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's stand was consistent and corroborated by the statements of his sons, who managed the business and admitted to the pilferage and sale of goods outside the books. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer's inference that the sons did not pay the amount to the assessee was misdirected and unsupported by evidence, as no specific question regarding the payment was put to the sons during the assessment.

Issue 2: Retraction of Admission by Employee Sons
The Tribunal examined the statements made by the assessee's sons on March 10, 2005, and their cross-examination on March 28, 2005. The Tribunal found that the sons' initial statements admitted to pilferage and sale of goods outside the books, but the cross-examination statements were in contradiction. The Tribunal noted that the cross-examination appeared to be rehearsed and designed to retract the initial admissions. However, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer failed to ask direct questions about the payment of the impugned amount to the assessee, leading to a misinterpretation of the sons' statements. The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully proved that the credits represented amounts received from his sons out of the sale proceeds of pilfered goods, supported by the stock shortfall found during the survey.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Tribunal's findings. The Court emphasized that it could not reappreciate evidence or take a different view merely because another view was possible. The Court found no substantial question of law to justify reversing the Tribunal's decision, which concluded that the amount of Rs. 13,56,000 was correctly deposited by the sons from the sale of pilfered stocks outside the books. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order in favor of the assessee.