A) Cit v. Pioneer Breeding Farms (295 Itr 78) (Mad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICESRI KALYAN JYOTI SEN GUPTA AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.274 OF 2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Hyderabad ..... Appellant AND M/s. Sri Taraka Jewellers,New Parkasham Bazar,Nalgonda .....Respondent The Court made the following : JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri K.J. Sengupta) This appeal is preferred and sought to be admittedon the following suggested questions of law against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated10.05.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2007-2008. 1.On the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Appellate Tribunal isjustified in deleting the addition ofRs.1,19,43,361/- being unexplainedinvestment on account of concealment ofstock as reflected from the statementfurnished to the Banker by the assessee? 2. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the finding ofthe Appellate Tribunal that thedepartment could not bring on record toevidence stock variation in excess ofwhat is recorded in the books of accountscan be said to be based on material onrecord?Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal is justified in deleting theaddition of Rs.1,19,43,361/- beingunexplained investment andRs.5,89,677/- being the estimated profiton the said unaccounted sales? 3. Upon reading of the suggested questions of law, itappears the appeal is directed in relation to theTribunal’s finding on the statement of account furnishedto the bank. It is settled position of law by virtue ofdecision of both the Tribunal and the High Court thatthere cannot be any addition of difference in the stockstatement furnished to the bank and the one shown inthe books of account. In this case, during survey,nothing is found or brought on record to show that on physical verification, the stock found was in excess ofthe stock recorded in the books of account. It wasexplained by the assessee that the stock statementfurnished to the bank was on estimate basis but thestock shown in the assessment proceedings wasbased on actual physical verification. As such, therewas no reason to reject the books of account of theassessee and no addition is called for solely on accountof the difference in value of the stock submitted to thebank and the value of the stock shown in the accountspresented for assessment. The learned Tribunal hasrelied on the following decisions. a) CIT Vs. Pioneer Breeding Farms (295 ITR 78) (Mad.) b) CIT Vs. Udaipur Chemicals & Fertilizers (P) Ltd., 211CTR 191 c) Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT (95ITR 375) (Mad) d) Dhansiram Agarwalla V. CIT (111 CTR 39) (Gau) e) Century Foams (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT (123 CTR 342) (All) f) V.Rajan V. CIT (96 ITR 64)(Mad) g) S.Murugappa Chettiar V. CIT (71 CTR 154) (Ker) Therefore, we do not find any reason to admit theappeal to decide the settled issue. Therefore, wedismiss the appeal. No order as to costs. ______________________ Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, CJ. July 12, 2013MAS __________ G.Rohini, J.