2010 (10) TMI 26 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained Investment - The Assessing officer made addition to the declared income of the assessee on the basis of stock available with it but not reflected in the books of accounts. The stock statement of hypothecated goods furnished to the bank was also at variance with the stock entered in the books of account. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the additions observing that without verification from the bank, the stock statement furnished to the bank could not have been relied upon. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored that of the Assessing Officer. Held that - the assessee was given due opportunity to explain the difference, but it could not give any satisfactory explanation. In these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in deleting the addition. The findings recorded by the Tribunal being a finding of fact did not call for any interference.

Issues:
1. Whether the difference between the stocks hypothecated with the bank and the stock shown in the books of account justifies invoking section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for making additions?
2. Whether the assessing authority erred in equating hypothecation of stock with pledging of stock and invoking section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
3. Whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer and restored by the Appellate Tribunal is without jurisdiction regarding the stock statement furnished to the bank in the case of hypothecation of stock?
4. Whether the actions of the assessing authority and the Appellate Tribunal lack jurisdiction and application of mind?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Assessing Officer made additions to the declared income based on stock available but not reflected in the books of account, including the discrepancy between the stock statement to the bank and the books. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the additions, citing lack of verification from the bank. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, emphasizing the bank's confirmation of the stock as per the statement given to them. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's conclusion valid, as supported by the bank's visit report and the stock statement's contents. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in making the additions based on the evidence available.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal rejected the argument that equating hypothecation of stock with pledging of stock was erroneous. It highlighted the importance of the bank's verification process and the significance of the stock statement in confirming the actual stock held by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the bank's visit report and the signed statement to the bank carried a presumption of truth regarding the stock quantity, supporting the Assessing Officer's decision to make additions to the income.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal addressed the jurisdictional aspect of the Assessing Officer's order, noting that the bank's verification and confirmation of the stock held by the assessee were crucial in justifying the additions made. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer had sufficient evidence to support the additions, including the lack of a valid explanation from the assessee regarding the stock differences. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal distinguished previous judgments cited by the assessee, emphasizing that the burden of proving taxability of income lies with the Revenue. In this case, the Tribunal found that the Revenue had discharged this burden by drawing inferences from the material available, particularly the stock statement to the bank. The Tribunal held that the findings justifying the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not perverse and dismissed the appeal accordingly. The questions of law framed by the assessee were answered against them based on the evidence and legal principles discussed in the judgment.

← Previous Next →