Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-2, Kolkata v. M/S. Agr Automobiles Pvt. Ltd

OD-32 ITAT/128/2018IA No.GA/2/2018 (Old No.GA/903/2018) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. AGR AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. Appearance:Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, Adv....for the appellant. Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv.Mr. Rites Goel, Adv....for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 13[th] December, 2021. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) isdirected against the order dated 12[th] July, 2017 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’in short) in ITA No.479/Kol/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11.The revenue has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the casethe Learned Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹12,82,98,524/- made by theAssessing Officer by disregarding that the said additionwas based on stock statement furnished by the SBI,Commercial Branch, Varanasi on physical verificationincluding details of purchases, stock and sales inquantity as well as in value?(ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the Learned Tribunal erred in law in holdingthat no addition of difference in stock is warranted inthe case were the Assessee adopts one stock value for thebank purpose and other for the Income Tax purpose?” We have heard Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, learned counsel for theappellant/revenue and Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned counsel for therespondent/assessee. On carefully going through the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV dated 18[th] November, 2013and the order passed by the Tribunal, we find that the entireissue is fully factual. The assessing officer made the additionsolely upon the value of the stock shown to the bank by theassessee. The correctness of such decision was tested by theCIT(A) as well as the tribunal and, on facts, found that theassessee was maintaining regular books of accounts and the bookswere duly accepted by the assessing office and the other statutoryauthorities, such as, sales tax authorities, excise department andno addition had been made by the assessing officer after rejecting the books and that neither purchase nor sales shown in the regularbooks were doubted. Identical issue came up for consideration before theDivision Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax,Durgapur vs. Shib Sankar Das reported in [2017] 83 taxmann.com 193(Calcutta), wherein the Court held that the addition to the incomeof the assessee on the basis of difference in value of stock shownin the books of account as compared to the value of the stockshown to the bank to avail enhanced credit facilities, was notjustified. Thus, we find that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence, theappeal stands dismissed on the ground that there is no substantialquestion of law arises for consideration.The connected application for stay (IA No.GA/2/2018 (OldNo.GA/903/2018) also stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)