Commissiner Of Income Tax Range-I, Bathinda v. Shri Munish Kumar Bansal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA No. 247 of 2014Date of Decision:- 13.07.2015 Commissiner of Income Tax Range-I, Bathinda ......Petitioner(s) vs. Shri Munish Kumar Bansal ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR,ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present:-Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate,for the appellant. Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate,for the respondent. S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (Oral) This is an appeal against the order of the Tribunal allowing therespondent's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) upholding the addition of about `1.51 crores to the respondent'sincome. The following questions are sought to be raised:- “i)Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, is the Hon'ble ITAT correct in holding that theasseessee has sufficiently rebutted the finding of theAssessing Officer that the assessee has suppressed itsstock worth Rs.1,51,67,000/- from appearing in hisbooks of account and thereby his income by that muchamount? ii)Whether the reconcillation chart notfurnished before the AO can be produced at theappellate stage? iii)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar haserred in relying upon the additional document?” The respondents contended that the closing stock as on31.03.2009 was only `17,50,000/-. The assessing officer, however, upontaking up the matter for scrutiny, found that the closing stock as on31.03.2009 was actually `169.17 lacs and not `17,50,000/-. This was onthe basis of the documents furnished by the respondent to avail a loan fromthe bank. According to the Assessing Officer, the documents disclosed theclosing stock as on 31.03.2009 to be about `169 lacs. The question, therefore, is whether the closing stock as on31.03.2009 was `17.50 lacs or `169 lacs. This is essentially a question offact. It involves an appreciation of the evidence on record. The question iswhether the finding of the Tribunal is perverse or not. The assessee's case is that the stock declared before the bank of `169.17 lacs was as on 30.03.2009 and that was for the purpose of rasing aloan. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had submitted a stockstatement to the bank as on 30.03.2009. The bank officer who wasquestioned by the Assessing Officer stated that the loan of `100 lacs wasdisbursed on 30.03.2009 on the basis of the inventory as on that day. Hefurther stated that the inventory of stock was physically verified. On31.03.2009, `166 lacs was booked as sales. The Tribunal has expresslynoted that the sales were not doubted by the authorities and in fact had beenaccepted. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, had it not been so, therespondent's income itself would have reduced to that extent. In the circumstances, we are unable to say that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse or totally unsustainable.The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE 13.07.2015shivani (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE