9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nafter referred to as " the Bank)". The maximum overdraft during the previous year was Rs. 2,56,831 as on October 20, 1969. The overdraft facility was enjoyed by him against the hypothecation of goods only and he had not furnished any other security to the bank. On inquiries made by the ITO, the bank informed him that as per statement of stock furnished by the assessee, the stock hypothecated with the bank as on September 27, 1969, amounted to Rs. 3,04,400. The position of the stock remained the same till October 20, 1969, when the maximum overdraft of Rs. 2,56,831 was obtained by the assessee. He was asked by the ITO to explain the position of availability of stock as on October 20, 1969. In reply, the assessee made a statement that he did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition of Rs. 64,400 maintained by the AAC. The Tribunal allowed further reduction of Rs. 2,600 to the assessee with the remarks that the value of the unexplained stock on the basis of the AAC's order worked out to Rs. 97,400 and not Rs. 1,00,000 as roughly worked out by the AAC. In other respects, it upheld the AAC's order. The Commissioner filed an application before the Tribunal that the case be referred under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act for the opinion of this court, which was dismissed, vide order dated April 3, 1976. Thereafter, he filed the present petition for directing the Tribunal to refer the following question of law to this court for its opinion : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal. The next contention of Mr. Ashok Bhan is that the assessee failed to show that the goods returned by the customers to him could be hypothecated by him with the bank. According to him, it was for the assessee to show that he had the right to hypothecate the goods. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee has urged that the Tribunal, after noticing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the customers returned the goods of the value of Rs. 43,457 to the assessee and which he hypothecated with the bank. That implies that lie had the power to hypothecate the same. That finding, being a finding of fact, is binding on the Department. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. However, we find substance i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
