2009 (7) TMI 71 - HC - Income Tax

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deletion of sum of Rs.37,71,931/- being the difference in stock value found? ii Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessee has discharged burden of proof cast upon him for Rs.11,00,000/- being the advance paid for purchase of land especially as the same was not shown in the Trial Balance? iii Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in not considering the fact that the voluntary statement made without any coercion or duress nor retracted given could form basis for the Assessment? Held that - it cannot be said that the Appellate Tribunal in the case before us has omitted to consider any material fact or any material piece of evidence appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Deletion of sum of Rs.37,71,931 as stock value difference.
2. Discharge of burden of proof for Rs.11,00,000 advance payment for land purchase.
3. Consideration of voluntary statement as a basis for assessment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of stock value difference
The Court examined the CIT(Appeals) order, noting that the Assessing Authority relied on the assessee's letter offering Rs.20,00,000 for assessment and Rs.17,71,932 as stock difference. However, the CIT(Appeals) found that the stock value at survey time was based on selling price, contrary to the requirement of cost price or market price, whichever is lower. It was observed that if valued correctly, the stock deficit of Rs.17,71,932 would not exist. Relying on precedents, the CIT(Appeals) emphasized that taxation is based on income supported by evidence, not taxpayer-agreement. Without supporting evidence for the offered sum, the deletion of Rs.37,71,931 was justified.

Issue 2: Burden of proof for advance payment
Regarding the Rs.11,00,000 advance payment discrepancy, the assessee explained it as received for land sale. Supporting documents and Mr. Chellappan's statement were presented, unchallenged by the Assessing Authority. The CIT(Appeals) rightly noted the absence of cross-examination or doubts on Mr. Chellappan's statement, indicating acceptance of the explanation. The Tribunal confirmed this deletion based on factual considerations, finding no irregularity in the decision.

Issue 3: Consideration of voluntary statement
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals) decision based on valid grounds explained by the assessee, without disturbing the order. Citing Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the Tribunal's judicial function to consider all material facts and evidence, the Court found no substantial question of law in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the CIT(Appeals) order, confirming the deletion of the stock value difference and advance payment discrepancies based on factual analysis and legal principles. The Tribunal's decision was supported by valid grounds, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.