9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharge the onus of explaining the discrepancy. The matter can be viewed from another angle, i.e., as and when there was additional stock of ₹ 3,44,000/-, the assessee approached the bank to show that the stock had increased. The said stock was pledged with the bank on 29.4.1988 and thereafter drawing power was enhanced by ₹ 2,33,600/- and accordingly the value of stock was changed by the bank. The value of hypothecated stock as on 31.3.1988 was repeated subsequently on 16.4.1988 and 24.8.1988 as there was no change of value of stock and the same was not informed to the bank. The assessee failed to prove incorrectness of entries of D.P. Register. The evidence was duly considered by the Tribunal and partial relief was gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was right in sustaining the addition of ₹ 12,89,080/- on account of discrepancy between the stocks reflected in the books of account and as per bank records specially when the discrepancy was only as regards the entry made in the D.P. Register and with the infirmity, defect or discrepancy as otherwise present in the books of accounts of the assessee-appellant? (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was right in sustaining the addition of ₹ 12,89,080/-, the same being made without any basis ignoring the cogent and material evidence placed on record by the assessee-appellant showing to the contrary? The necessary facts ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the revenue before the Tribunal was partly allowed on 28.2.2000. The explanation with regard to ₹ 3,44,000/- for difference in stock was accepted and the addition to the tune of ₹ 11,88,530/- on account of discrepancy in stock was sustained, hence the present appeal. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that the Tribunal erred in sustaining the addition, as a certificate from the bank was produced to the effect that no statement of stock as on 28.4.1988 was filed by the assessee. He submitted that figure as on 31.3.1988 of stock value of ₹ 20,44,026/- was reproduced by the bank. Contention is that from the hypothecated stock, pledge of stock worth ₹ 12,89,080/- was made. The contentions raised do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed stock of ₹ 20,00,000/- odd. To substantiate the said claim, no evidence was produced before the authorities. The bank was never informed that the hypothecated stock was reduced and out that ₹ 12,00,000/- odd of stock was pledged. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of explaining the discrepancy. The matter can be viewed from another angle, i.e., as and when there was additional stock of ₹ 3,44,000/-, the assessee approached the bank to show that the stock had increased. The said stock was pledged with the bank on 29.4.1988 and thereafter drawing power was enhanced by ₹ 2,33,600/- and accordingly the value of stock was changed by the bank. The value of hypothecated stock as on 31.3.1988 was repeated subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
