TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged to have been produced out of excess of Dolomite powder shown in the bank statements furnished to the bank against hypothecation of stocks without pointing out any omission or suppression or without bringing any material on record to justify the said findings. 2.1 The facts of the issue are that the Assessing Officer called for various bank statements for different months and worked out the difference in quantity of raw-material as well as other goods hypothecated to the bank with actual stocks available with the assessee firm. The stock statement furnished to the bank were called for related to 14 May, 1990, 11 July, 1990, 13 Sept., 1990, 18 Oct., 1990 and 26 Nov., 1990. The Assessing Officer found from the books of account that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer has made double addition both in respect of suppressed stocks as well as the excess stock available. He has not been able to point out any discrepancy in the purchase of other items required for affecting the sale, namely bottles, label caps and cartoons as without these goods, the manufactured product cannot be sold. It is also argued that the Assessing Officer has not been able to point out that the assessee has made purchases outside the books of account in respect of various ingredients required to manufacture tooth powder. Alternatively, it was argued on legal ground that the Assessing Officer could at the most frame assessment in the manner as required under section 144 and arrive at a reasonable estimate if he found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 990 on account of difference found in the stocks as reflected in the stock statement furnished to the bank and that appearing in the books of account of the assessee and also made addition of Rs. 2,58,765 on account of suppressed sales. According to CIT(A), it is a double addition under both the heads. Thus, the total addition on both the accounts made at Rs. 4,77,765 which was held to be double addition by CIT(A), she, therefore, restricted the addition as worked out by the assessee on account of suppressed production at Rs. 1,65,822 and thus gave relief of Rs. 3,11,933 [Rs. 4,77,755 (-) Rs. 1,65,822]. 2.3 The ld. Counsel to the assessee has argued that the assessee has declared much more stock in hand than was declared to the bank in or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the statement furnished to the bank and that appearing in the books of account of the assessee and also the addition made on account of suppressed production at Rs. 2,58,765. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions and also the various decisions cited by the ld. Counsel to the assessee and the ld. DR. The ld. counsel has cited the decision of jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT v. Gopal Rice Mills [1995] 211 ITR 492 (All.). The Hon ble High Court has held that while dismissing the application of the revenue that the assessing authorities merely relied on the conveyance charged on the inspection made by the bank officials which admittedly was indirect evidence. The Tribunal placed reliance on the levy register on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Kaila Sweet Supplier v. CIT [1998] 100 Taxman 59 (All.). It is held in favour of the revenue, as under : "The Tribunal has dealt with in detail the entire case of the assessee. It has found that the story set up by the assessee was untenable inasmuch as the information furnished by the bank contains not only the items of stock but also their quantity. The burden lay on the assessee to prove that the apparent was not real which was not discharged in the instant case. It cannot be said that addition in question was not supported by any material on record. The order of the Tribunal is concluded by the findings of fact and does not give rise to any question of law." 3.1 In another judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on about the levy of interest but in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has not directed to charge interest at all what to say under a particular section. Thus, we direct not to charge any interest under section 234B and hence this ground of appeal is allowed. 5. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed. Revenue s Appeal No. 2464/Del/95 : 5.1 The revenue has taken the ground of appeal as under: "That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,65,822 out of total addition of Rs. 4,77,755 (Rs. 2,18,990 on account of unaccounted stock and Rs. 2,58,765 on account of undisclosed sales) after relying the assessee s working irrespective of the fact that : (i)the discrepancies in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
