1992 (11) TMI 55 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of action taken by the Income-tax Officer u/s 147(a) for the assessment year 1972-73.
2. Justification for the addition of Rs. 5,04,137 representing the difference between the stock value shown in the books of account and the value disclosed to the bank.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of Action u/s 147(a)
The Tribunal upheld the action taken by the Income-tax Officer u/s 147(a) for the assessment year 1972-73, finding it proper and valid. The Tribunal observed that the original Income-tax Officer did not form any opinion on the discrepancy between the stock value shown in the books and the value disclosed to the bank. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. T.S.PL.P. Chidambaram Chettiar [1971] 80 ITR 467, emphasizing that vague information before the Officer at the time of the original assessment was insufficient to bring the amount to tax. The Tribunal concluded that the successor Income-tax Officer's action was not based on a mere change of opinion but on new information obtained during the assessment proceedings for 1973-74, which revealed that the assessee had disclosed stock amounting to Rs. 9,21,507 to the bank, contrary to the stock value shown in the books. The court agreed with the Tribunal's view, stating that the assessee failed to disclose this information to the Officer who completed the original assessment, thereby justifying the reopening of the assessment u/s 147(a).

Issue 2: Justification for Addition of Rs. 5,04,137
The Income-tax Officer added Rs. 5,04,137 to the assessee's income u/s 69B, as the assessee did not offer any satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy between the stock value shown in the books and the value disclosed to the bank. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner of Income-tax's view that the stock revealed by the accounts must be correct due to rigid control by Government agencies. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation that the stock declaration to the bank was inflated to obtain higher overdraft facilities to be unsupported by any material. The Tribunal's view was that the assessee's self-serving explanation could not be accepted without evidence. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the addition to the income was justified under section 69B of the Act.

Conclusion:
The court answered both questions in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference to the Revenue.