9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determination of the addition of Rs. 3,72,198 made by the Assessing Officer on account of a shortage of stock detected at the time of survey under section 133A(1) by treating it as stock sold outside the regular books of account. Analysis: The respondent, a partnership firm engaged in the sale and purchase of gold and silver ornaments, underwent a survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where a difference in stock was noted. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,72,198 as notional profit on the stock of jewellery found short during the survey. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal and deleted the addition, emphasizing that the discrepancy in statements made during the survey and assessment proceedings was inconsequential. The Commissioner noted the absence of evidence for sales outside the books and the usual practice of keeping stock at home for safe custody. The Tribunal upheld the appellate order, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant argued that the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were flawed as they disregarded the discrepancy in statements made by a partner of the respondent during the survey and assessment proceedings. The appellant contended that the notional profit addition was justified due to the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the ornaments were taken home. However, the court found no substantial question of law in the appeal, citing principles related to the scope of section 260A of the Act. The court highlighted that if the conclusions of the Tribunal are plausible based on the facts of the case, it does not amount to a substantial question of law. The court concluded that the reasons provided by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for setting aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer were reasonable. The court held that the Tribunal did not err in confirming the appellate order, as the justifications for deleting the addition were valid. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that the orders did not give rise to a substantial question of law under section 260A of the Act.
|
