TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Under the circumstances, the conclusion of the Tribunal being based upon concurrent findings of fact recorded by it after appreciation of the evidence on record, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the findings of fact recorded by it, it cannot be said that the impugned order gives rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, so as to warrant interference. - Decided against revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 737 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2015 - Harsha Devani And A. G. Uraizee, JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs Mauna M Bhatt, Adv ORDER ( Per : Honourable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani ) 1. The appellant revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of CIT v. Arrow Exim (P) Ltd., (2010) 230 CTR 293, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal but did not succeed. 3. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that as per the stock statement submitted by the assessee company before Nutan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. as on 31.3.2005 there was a stock worth ₹ 61,98,448/- whereas the company has shown stock in books of accounts at ₹ 29,55,633/-. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has very specifically mentioned that the assessee had maintained books on regular basis and its claim that details of stock s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals), accordingly, found that there was no quantity difference in the stock found by the Assessing Officer on comparing the two stock details. The Commissioner (Appeals) took note of the fact that the assessee also advanced reasons for such difference; firstly that there was a split in the business of the assessee company during the year and a new entity was created which had substantial stock and the accountant submitted the stock statement ignoring the separate identity. Another submission of the assessee was that the stock statement was given to the bank on the basis of estimate without referring to the quantitative stock records maintained by it. Various other submissions were made by the assessee, which made it clear tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of CIT v. Veerdip Rollers (P.) Ltd., (2010) 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), and noted that in the facts of the present case also the revenue had not reported that there was any difference in the quantity of stock; and the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry in respect of the explanation of the assessee that the stock belonging to another entity was included in the stock statement submitted by the banker, and accordingly, found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thus, the Tribunal has recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the revenue had failed to establish that there was in fact any difference in the quantity of stock and has thereafter merely applied t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
