TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,81,53,853/- representing the unexplained investment in stock identified by the Assessing Officer. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the bank authorities had inspected stock every quarter and had furnished a report thereon which clearly demonstrate that the stock was closely monitored by the bank and was literally inexistent. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has further failed to appreciate that the loan obtained by the assessee did commensurate with the stock secured by the bank by hypothecation which had been recorded, inspected and approved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the reason that the said expenditure was not wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) fails to note that the three properties namely No. 17, Vanniar Street, LB Road Property and Poonamalle High Road property were not used for business purpose. Hence proportionate interest attributable to nonbusiness assets was disallowed. 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 4. Grounds No. 1 and 4 are general in nature and in the absence of any specific submission on the same, they are dismissed. 5. In respect of grounds No. 2 to 2.6 which are agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the assessment year 2001-02 dated 27-07-2007. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. N. Swamy reported in 241 ITR 363 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as follows : We find it a little difficult to agree with those observations. The assessee s income is to be assessed by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the material which is required to be considered for the purpose of assessment and ordinarily not on the basis of the statement which the assessee may have given to a third party unless there is material to corroborate that statement of the assessee given to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Sri Padmavathi Cotton Mills reported in 236 ITR 340 wherein it has been held as follows: We are of the opinion that a finding on the question as to what is the correct quantum of closing stock is a pure question of fact and since the finding of the Tribunal was arrived at on the basis of the materials on record, we are of the opinion that no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal for our consideration. Hence we hold that the second question sought for is not a referable question of law. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. T.A. Quereshi v. CIT reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact. 8. Now let us see to the facts in the present case. There was a survey in the premises on 09-01-2001 relevant to the assessment year 2001-02. In the course of survey, it was noticed that the physical stock tallied with the books of accounts. It is to be kept in mind that each assessment year separate. Thus for the year ended 31-03-2001, relevant to the assessment year 2001-02, as the books of account and the physical stock did tally, the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal held that no addition could be made because the figures given to the bank were in fact wrong figures. However, for the assessment year under appeal, i.e. 2002-03, there is no such evidence. There is no survey. There is no corroborative evidence to show that the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the auditors of the assessee themselves had disallowed interest paid to the bankers. It was the submission that the assessee had not been able to specifically show as to for which purpose the interest had been paid. It was the submission that that the order of the learned CIT(A) is liable to be reversed. 10. In reply, the learned authorised representative submitted that the auditors of the assessee had themselves disallowed the interest. However, it was the submission that the interest had also been claimed against the head house property income as a portion of the loan had been borrowed as housing loan. It was the submission that as the disallowance had also been made by the assessee himself, the order of the learned CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
