The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 v. M/S. Amol Paper Syndicate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1038 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-12 v/s M/s. Amol Paper Syndicate Mr. R.A. Vaishampayan for AppellantMr. Rajeev Waglay a/w Mr. B.G. Tangsali for Respondent Coram : Dr. S. RadhakrishnanS.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date : 8.9.2008 P.C. : Appellant : Respondent .Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. In the above appeal following questions of law are involved. a)Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Tribunal is right indeleting the addition made by the AssessingOfficer on the ground of suppression of stock?b) Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Tribunal is right inignoring the specific provisions of section132(4A)(ii) of the I.T. Act and in acceptingthe stock as declared by the Respondent,without appreciating that the Respondentaccepted the addition made in the assessmentand filed a petition under Kar Vivad SamadhanScheme, 1998 for relief under the said scheme? . We have perused the judgment of Income Tax Tribunal dt. 29.5.2007 wherein in paragraph 1.2 the Tribunal has observed as under:- "According to the CIT(A) nowhere it seems tohave any under valuation of the actual stockand, thus, the difference added to the totalincome was not any rational or sound basis.Even in the Remand Report submitted by theAssessing Officer, there seems no answer tothe issues raised by the CIT(A) and thedirection given by the Tribunal. Once thestock registers available with the Departmenttallied with the inventory shown in the returnof income for the assessment year 1989-90,there was no concrete evidence available toshow that there was suppression of stock orotherwise. When there is nothing to show thatthe working papers which found formed thebasis of addition were the inventory sheetsand when the type of verification as requiredas per the directions of the authorities hasnot been carried out by the Assessing Officer.The CIT(A) was rightly viewed that theaddition made on account of difference inclosing stock amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/- isnot sustainable. Accordingly, the CIT(A)rightly deleted the addition in question. Wehold the same.".In view of the above it is explicitly clear itis mere finding of fact. There is no substantialquestion of law involved in the above. Appeal is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)