2007 (8) TMI 269

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, against the order dated March 31, 2006, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, for the block period April 1, 1995, to November 30, 2001. At the time of admission of the appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated by this court by order dated November 24, 2006: "W .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that in the business premises of the respondent, stocks of other sister concerns of the respondent, namely, M/s. Narmada Ginning and Pressing Factory, M/s. Vivek Kumar Gopaldas, M/s. Vinayak Ginning Factory and M/s Vishwanath Flour Industries, were also kept and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the combined stock of the respondent as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ound in the course of search commodity wise. The Tribunal also held that the addition of Rs. 4,96,021 on account of such variation in stock as held by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was also not justified for the following reasons: (i) accurate weight of wheat, soyabean, unpressed cotton, cotton seeds, chana and cotton bales (rui) is not practically possible to estimate; (ii) due to weig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... paper book filed before the Tribunal. It is, thus, clear that on the materials available before it, the Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 4,96,021 in the hands of the respondent on account of variation of stock as sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified. In our considered opinion, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the addition made by the Assessing Officer o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ance Act, 2002, introduced the proviso to section 113 with effect from June 1, 2002, and, therefore, no surcharge was leviable under the proviso. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of variation in stock and in forming an opinion that no surcharge is leviable. The appeal is, thus, dismissed.
Cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X