9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of difference furnished to the bank as per books of account u/s 69B of the Act can not be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the stock statement dated 31.03.2010 is Rs.84,10,600/-, the same is not justified keeping in view the following facts: i) The cash credit limit has been availed by the appellant against hypothecation of stock and not against pledge of stock. In the case of hypothecation of stock the control and possession remains with the borrower and not with the bank. ii) The AO has not been able to rebut the contention of the A/R of the appellant raised consistently during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings that the stock as per stock statement was inflated to continue the cash credit limit. The AO has also not been able to rebut the contention of the A/R of the appellant that the stock was not physically verified by the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is 5276084/- as per balance sheet filed with the department. Thus, the contention of the appellant that the balance sheet was filed before the bank only for the purpose availing cash credit limit is justified particularly keeping in view the fact that there is no rebuttal by the AO on this issue either during the course of assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings. 6.10. The law as laid down by the judgments of Hon'ble P & H High Court, ITAT Amritsar Bench discussed supra in detail does not allow the AO to make the addition on account of difference in stock as per stock statement and as per balance sheet on the stock statement particularly when the stock has not been physically verified by the bank. In the present case the AO ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) or even before us that physical verification of the stock has actually been done and accordingly stock statements so submitted before the bank authorities and DP register cannot be relied upon. 33. In the case of CIT vs. Veerdip Roller (P) Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 341 (Guj), the facts are that the AO made addition on account of difference in the value of closing stock furnished to the bank and the value of the stock found in the books of account furnished to the Income Tax Authorities - inflated stock was hypothetical and not pledged and the bank officials had not verified the statement showing inflated stock so produced by the assessee. The addition on account of difference furnished to the bank as per books of account u/s 69B of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
