M/S.tip Top Platstics Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Company Circle I (Inv),Chennai

M/s.Tip Top Platstics Private Limited,No.9, Kasi Chetty Street,Chennai – 600 001... Appellant in both appeals Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle I (Inv),Chennai. .. Respondent in both appeals Common Prayer: Tax Case Appeals are filed under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') against theorder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai,dated 09.08.2004 in ITA Nos. 1260 & 1261/Mds/1995, for theAssessment years 1981-82 & 1982-83 respectively. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-V, Madras dated 27.03.1995 made in I.T.A.Nos.32/90-91and 34/90-91 against the order of the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax Company Circle-I(Inv), Madras dated 19.03.1990 madein G.I.R.No.1-T, for the Assessment yeaar 1981-82 & 83respectively. These Tax Case Appeals by the assessee are filed underSection 260A of the Act against the order of the Income Tax https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 09.08.2004 in ITANos. 1260 & 1261/Mds/1995, for the Assessment years 1981-82 &1982-83 respectively. 2. These appeals were admitted vide order dated 18.04.2011on the following Substantial Questions of Law: “(i) Whether the Income Tax AppellateTribunal is right in law in replying on a book SM84 for the purpose of arriving at closing stock,which even according to the Assessing Officer thebook is concocted and interpolated? (ii) Whether the Income Tax AppellateTribunal is right in law in permitting anaddition on presumption and assumption underSection 69B for the assessment year 1981-82 whichforms the basis for addition for the assessmentyear 1982-83 and moreover when it is a searchcase? (iii) Whether the Income Tax AppellateTribunal is right in law in confirming theaddition made by the Assessing Officer underSection 69B for the assessment year 1981-82 whichforms the basis for addition for the assessmentyear 1982-83 wherein the Assessing Officer hasrelied on the stock statement given by theappellant to the bank on 28.02.1981 and30.04.1981 to conclude that there is differencein the stock given to the Income Tax Departmentand to the bank as on 31.03.1981?” 3.Heard, Mr.Ashok Pathy, for M/s.Pathy and Pathy, learnedcounsel for the appellant and M/s.V.Pushpa, learned counsel forthe respondent. 4.We have carefully considered the entire materials whichwere placed before us and have perused the orders passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), CIT(A) and furtherconfirmed by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated09.08.2004. The contention of the assesee is that the Tribunalought not to have relied on an undated book which was assessedby the Department, marked as SM 84 for the purpose of arrivingat closing stock. 5.Firstly, we may point out that the questions which havebeen raised by the Assessee are not Substantial Questions of Lawbut purely the questions of fact. In any event, to consider the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ correctness of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe assessee, we have gone through the order passed by theTribunal. The Tribunal did not merely go by what was stated inthe books assessed by the Authorities, but it took intoconsideration the statement given by the Bank. The Statementwhich was furnished by the Assessee Bank was corroborated by theBank Manager and the Accountant and also physical verificationwas made by the Field Officers of the Bank. 6.After undertaking such an exercise, the Tribunal pointedout that the case of the assessee was that they use to give 25%inflated stock position to the bank for getting required fundswas found to be false. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ correctness of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe assessee, we have gone through the order passed by theTribunal. The Tribunal did not merely go by what was stated inthe books assessed by the Authorities, but it took intoconsideration the statement given by the Bank. The Statementwhich was furnished by the Assessee Bank was corroborated by theBank Manager and the Accountant and also physical verificationwas made by the Field Officers of the Bank. 6.After undertaking such an exercise, the Tribunal pointedout that the case of the assessee was that they use to give 25%inflated stock position to the bank for getting required fundswas found to be false. 7.Thus, the Tribunal agreed with the factual findingrendered by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also that SM 84reflects stock position as on 31.03.1981 and therefore, theauthorities have rightly taken up itself as undisclosed incomeof the assessee. Thus, we find there is no Substantial Questionof Law arising of these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals aredismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mrm/kmmTo 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle I (Inv), Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-V,Madras. 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. 4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras. +2 cc to mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate Sr.No.81318,81319 AK(CO)CSL/04.01.2019