9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Application u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding confirmation of deletion of addition by the Tribunal, reliance on bank letter, justification of confirming deletion, consistency of Tribunal's findings, and onus of proof regarding knowledge of goods sale.
Issue 1: The Commissioner of Income-tax sought clarification on the correctness of confirming the deletion of Rs. 1,68,410 despite the earlier dismissal of the assessee's appeal by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Issue 2: Concerning the reliance on a bank letter over a physical verification certificate of stock, the Tribunal was questioned on justifiability in ignoring the bank's certification of stock worth Rs. 3,80,446. Issue 3: The Tribunal's confirmation of the deletion of Rs. 1,68,401 was challenged based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Issue 4: The consistency of the Tribunal's findings was questioned, specifically whether they were contrary to their previous decision in the assessee's appeal. Issue 5: The Tribunal's decision regarding the onus of proof on the knowledge of goods sale was scrutinized, particularly in relation to the lack of material to rebut the assessee's submission. The brief facts revealed that discrepancies were found between the stock hypothecated with the bank and the stock recorded in the books of account. The Income-tax Officer inferred that undisclosed income of Rs. 1,68,410 existed due to stock being kept outside the books. However, this addition was later deleted in appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The assessee explained that the discrepancy arose from the branch office selling stock transferred from the head office without informing the latter, leading to the incorrect hypothecation of the same stock to the bank. The explanation also addressed the damaged raw material and erroneously hypothecated manufacturing stock. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation, emphasizing that the findings were factual and not legal questions. The bank manager's letter supported the assessee's claim that the stock remained in their control despite hypothecation, refuting the need for physical verification by the bank. Ultimately, the application was rejected based on the acceptance of the assessee's explanation by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, highlighting the factual nature of the findings.
|
