Chander Kant v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 507 of 2009DATE OF DECISION : 17.12.2009 Chander Kant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak .... APPELLANT ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLARHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate,for the appellant-assessee.for the appellant-assessee. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), against the orderdated 31.12.2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh `A' Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the ITAT') inITA No. 624/Chd/2008, pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91, raisingthe following substantial questions of law : (i)Whether the order of the ITAT is perverse for making theaddition of the stock reconciled which is contrary to thematerial on record and having recorded an unreasonablefinding?addition of the stock reconciled which is contrary to thematerial on record and having recorded an unreasonablefinding? (ii)Whether the order of the ITAT in sustaining the additionof Rs. 1,76,790/- representing unexplained investment ofstock is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to materialof Rs. 1,76,790/- representing unexplained investment ofstock is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to material placed on record and, therefore vitiated in law? (iii)Whether the ITAT has erred both in law and, on facts inconfirming the addition of unexplained investment instock in clear disregard of its own direction in the orderdated 17.10.2001 and, reconcilation of stock furnishedby appellant and, material placed on record?confirming the addition of unexplained investment instock in clear disregard of its own direction in the orderdated 17.10.2001 and, reconcilation of stock furnishedby appellant and, material placed on record? In this case, the dispute is about addition of Rs. 1,76,790/- by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in the stock as shown in thestatement to be furnished to the bank and as appearing in the books ofaccounts for the assessment year 1990-91, as un-explained investment instock. The said addition has been confirmed by the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals), Rohtak [hereinafter referred to as `the CIT (A)'] as well asthe ITAT, while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee argued that theauthorities below have recorded a wrong finding of fact to the effect thatthere was a difference in the stock statement, which was to be furnished tothe bank, and the position of stock appearing in the account books. Hesubmits that without properly appreciating the explanation of the assessee, awrong finding of fact has been recorded. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-assessee andgoing through the impugned order, we do not find that the concurrentfinding of fact recorded by the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT is contrary to thematerial available on record or is perverse. The difference in the stockposition was noticed on the basis of the statement dated 31.1.1990, dulysigned by the assessee and was prepared for furnishing the same to the bank, ITA No. 507 of 2009 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-assessee andgoing through the impugned order, we do not find that the concurrentfinding of fact recorded by the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT is contrary to thematerial available on record or is perverse. The difference in the stockposition was noticed on the basis of the statement dated 31.1.1990, dulysigned by the assessee and was prepared for furnishing the same to the bank, ITA No. 507 of 2009 which was available on the record. The assessee has not disputed hissignatures on the said statement. He has also not disputed that the saidstatement was prepared by the assessee for presenting it to the bank forobtaining higher credit limit. From the said statement and from the quantityof stock shown in the accounts, the difference was noticed, as the assesseehas shown more quantity of stock in the aforesaid statement, which was tobe presented to the bank. It was found that in case the quantity of stock instatement is at variance with the stock as shown in the books of accounts,the assessee has to be render the explanation. In the instant case, the onlyexplanation given by the assessee is that a wrong date of 31.1.1990 insteadof 16.2.1990 was put on the aforesaid statement. This explanation can not beaccepted, being not satisfactory, and the aforesaid addition was made by theAssessing Officer, which has been rightly upheld by the CIT (A) as well asthe ITAT, while recording a finding of fact to the effect that the additionwas made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement prepared andsigned by the assessee for furnishing the same to the bank and on account ofnon-explanation of the said variation. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no substantialquestion of law arises from the order of the ITAT. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGEJUDGE December 17, 2009 ndj ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR )JUDGE