9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DUSTRIES Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER [2014 (11) TMI 935 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee - TAX APPEAL NO. 1182 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2016 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR BD KARIA with MR DARSHAN PATEL for MR RK PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of present appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench B , Ahmedabad, (For short, the Tribunal ) in ITA No.4317/AHD/2003 dated 28.2.2006, whereby the Tribunal has reversed the order of the CIT (A) and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 2. At the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stence of excess stock with the appellant, respectfully following the consistent decision of the jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on this issue and various other judicial decisions on the subject matter, I hold that the addition made on account of discrepancy in stock shown to the bank and to the I.T. Authorities in the instant case to the tune of ₹ 44,29,335/- is not justified. It is seen in this case that the addition is not on the basis of difference in quantity. There is also no material brought on record to prove that the appellant has made undisclosed investment in purchasing of stock. In absence of any such finding, the addition cannot be sustained. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank. It is submitted that, in view of these findings, the view taken by the Tribunal and the Assessing Officer is required to be accepted by dismissing present appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and other material on record. We have also perused the judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant. While deciding Tax Appeal Nos.16 and 229 of 2001, this Court has observed as under:- Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. The learned advocate for the appellant has contended that now the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad III v. Riddhi St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished to the banking authorities. If, for the purpose of fulfilling the margin requirements of the bank purely on inflated estimate basis, when the stock statement had reflected inflated value of the stock, in wake of otherwise satisfactory explanation, both for the purpose of value as well as quantity, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 5. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent is not in a position to dispute the same. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appeals deserve to be allowed. The question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The order impugned in both the Tax Appeals passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are quashed and set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
