Commissioner of Income Tax Range-I vs Munish Kumar Bansal

S.J. Vazifdar, Acting C.J—This is an appeal against the order of the Tribunal allowing the respondent''s appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upholding the addition of about Rs. 1.51 crores to the respondent''s income. The following questions are sought to be raised:-

"i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, is the Hon''ble ITAT correct in holding that the assessee has sufficiently rebutted the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has suppressed its stock worth Rs. 1,51,67,000/- from appearing in his books of account and thereby his income by that much amount?

ii) Whether the reconciliation chart not furnished before the AO can be produced at the appellate stage?

iii) Whether the Hon''ble ITAT Amritsar has erred in relying upon the additional document?"

The respondents contended that the closing stock as on 31.03.2009 was only Rs. 17,50,000/-. The assessing officer, however, upon taking up the matter for scrutiny, found that the closing stock as on 31.03.2009 was actually Rs. 169.17 lacs and not Rs. 17,50,000/-. This was on the basis of the documents furnished by the respondent to avail a loan from the bank. According to the Assessing Officer, the documents disclosed the closing stock as on 31.03.2009 to be about Rs. 169 lacs.

The question, therefore, is whether the closing stock as on 31.03.2009 was Rs. 17.50 lacs or Rs. 169 lacs. This is essentially a question of fact. It involves an appreciation of the evidence on record. The question is whether the finding of the Tribunal is perverse or not.

The assessee''s case is that the stock declared before the bank of Rs. 169.17 lacs was as on 30.03.2009 and that was for the purpose of raising a loan. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had submitted a stock statement to the bank as on 30.03.2009. The bank officer who was questioned by the Assessing Officer stated that the loan of Rs. 100 lacs was disbursed on 30.03.2009 on the basis of the inventory as on that day. He further stated that the inventory of stock was physically verified. On 31.03.2009, Rs. 166 lacs was booked as sales. The Tribunal has expressly noted that the sales were not doubted by the authorities and in fact had been accepted. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, had it not been so, the respondent''s income itself would have reduced to that extent.

In the circumstances, we are unable to say that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse or totally unsustainable.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.