9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking the plea that these questions emerge from the order of the Tribunal. The questions are as under: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A), directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80 HHC, on export incentives, received by the assessee as a supporting manufacturer in the same manner, as in the case of direct exporter, treating the supporting manufacturer at par with the direct exporter and ignoring the provisions of section 80- HHC (1A) read with section 80 HHC (3A) read with clause (baa) of Explanation of section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue against the revenue and the instant appeal will follow the suit. 4. On question No. (ii), the Assessing Officer has made an addition on the basis of difference of Rs. 8,38,77,635/- between the value of stock as on 31.3.2004 as computed on 25.3.2004. It is based on the stock statement submitted to City Bank, New Delhi and the value of closing stock as on 31.3.2004, as shown in the balance sheet. Accordingly it was added to the income of the assessee, as deemed income under Section 69 of the Act. The basic reason for the Assessing Officer to take the aforesaid view was that the assessee- respondent did not have any explanation about the source of investment in stocks of Rs. 8,38,77,635/-. When the assessee filed an appeal, the CIT(A) de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer has not been able to brought on record any evidence to show that there was difference in the quantity of stock given to the bank and the one shown in the books of account. It was on the aforesaid basis that additions were deleted. The CIT(A) after considering the aforesaid fact held that the addition could be made only if quantity of stock submitted to the bank was higher than the quantity as per books, which were pledged counted or verified by the bank officials. In this case quantitative details were not given to the bank and the stock was not pledged to the bank. It was also not verified by any bank official. Therefore, statement given to the bank could not be relied upon. The aforesaid finding has been accepted by the Tribunal in pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
