9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of undisclosed income based on stock position discrepancy. 2. Admissibility of additional evidence under rule 46A of Income-tax Rules. 3. Practice of declaring inflated stock figures for loan purposes. Issue 1: The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,704 as income from undisclosed sources due to the difference in stock position as per account books and bank records. The Tribunal accepted the stock indicated by the assessee's account books, considering the discrepancy as a result of filing inflated lists for obtaining loans, where stock valuation methods differ between the bank and the assessee's books. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual acceptance of the stock position, leading to the dismissal of the petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue 2: The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's consideration of additional evidence, which the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not allow under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, was questioned. The Tribunal's decision to admit and consider this evidence was challenged. However, the Tribunal's stance was that the evidence was relevant to understanding the discrepancy in stock positions and the practice of declaring inflated figures for loan purposes. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, emphasizing that the stock position as per the account books was accepted, and no question of law arose from this factual determination. Issue 3: The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's observation regarding the practice of declaring inflated stock figures for obtaining higher loan amounts or overdraft facilities was scrutinized. The Tribunal's acknowledgment of this common business practice was a key aspect of the case. The Tribunal highlighted the differing valuation methods used for stock by banks and in account books, emphasizing the market price valuation for loans versus cost valuation in books. This observation was crucial in understanding the discrepancy in stock positions and played a significant role in the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the petition, as it was based on factual acceptance of the stock position indicated by the assessee's account books.
|
