2018 (3) TMI 963 - HC - Income Tax

Addition on account of discrepancy in stock statements - Held that - All the three authorities have come to a finding of fact that the claim of closing stock made by the appellant on the basis of the figures indicated in the Balance Sheet is not supported by the evidence on record. In these circumstance, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law as it is an essentially finding of fact which is not shown to be perverse is any manner. - Decided against assessee. Appeal admitted on the substantial question of law at no.3 - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal is justified in sustaining the dis-allowance of interest under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act ?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Breach of principles of natural justice in passing the order dated 25th March, 2015 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2007-08.
2. Justification of sustaining the addition of ?8,61,300/- due to a discrepancy in stock statements.
3. Justification of sustaining the disallowance of interest under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:

Regarding Question No.1:
The appellant claimed a breach of natural justice due to insufficient time given for preparation. However, the court found that the appellant had previously sought an adjournment due to the sudden demise of the Accounts Manager, which was granted. During the subsequent hearing, the appellant did not request additional time, and their submissions were considered. The court concluded that the grievance of breach of natural justice was not substantiated, and hence, Question no.1 was not entertained.

Regarding Question No.2:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and trading of copper-based chemicals, faced an addition to closing stock due to a discrepancy noticed by the Assessing Officer. The closing stock declared to the Banker differed from that in the Balance Sheet, and the appellant failed to substantiate this difference. Despite producing inadequate evidence, including a blank Excise Audit Certificate, the appellant's claim was not supported. The court emphasized that it is the responsibility of parties to provide evidence for their claims, and authorities are not obligated to search for evidence. Referring to a previous case, the court highlighted the importance of evidence to support claims. As all three authorities found the appellant's closing stock claim unsupported by evidence, Question no.2 was deemed not to raise any substantial question of law and was dismissed.

Regarding Question No.3:
The appeal was admitted concerning the disallowance of interest under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, indicating that this issue required further consideration.

The court directed the Registry to provide a copy of the order to the Tribunal for necessary action.