Chander Kant vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 December, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                                      I.T.A. No. 507 of 2009
                                          DATE OF DECISION : 17.12.2009

Chander Kant
                                                            .... APPELLANT
                                   Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak
                                                         ..... RESPONDENT

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR


Present:    Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate,
            for the appellant-assessee.

                         ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.

The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260-A of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’), against the order

dated 31.12.2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,

Chandigarh `A’ Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the ITAT’) in

ITA No. 624/Chd/2008, pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91, raising

the following substantial questions of law :

(i) Whether the order of the ITAT is perverse for making the
addition of the stock reconciled which is contrary to the
material on record and having recorded an unreasonable
finding?

(ii) Whether the order of the ITAT in sustaining the addition
of Rs. 1,76,790/- representing unexplained investment of
stock is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to material
ITA No. 507 of 2009 -2-

placed on record and, therefore vitiated in law?

(iii) Whether the ITAT has erred both in law and, on facts in
confirming the addition of unexplained investment in
stock in clear disregard of its own direction in the order
dated 17.10.2001 and, reconcilation of stock furnished
by 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 the

statement to be furnished to the bank and as appearing in the books of

accounts for the assessment year 1990-91, as un-explained investment in

stock. The said addition has been confirmed by the Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeals), Rohtak [hereinafter referred to as `the CIT (A)’] as well as

the ITAT, while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.

Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee argued that the

authorities below have recorded a wrong finding of fact to the effect that

there was a difference in the stock statement, which was to be furnished to

the bank, and the position of stock appearing in the account books. He

submits that without properly appreciating the explanation of the assessee, a

wrong finding of fact has been recorded.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-assessee and

going through the impugned order, we do not find that the concurrent

finding of fact recorded by the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT is contrary to the

material available on record or is perverse. The difference in the stock

position was noticed on the basis of the statement dated 31.1.1990, duly

signed by the assessee and was prepared for furnishing the same to the bank,
ITA No. 507 of 2009 -3-

which was available on the record. The assessee has not disputed his

signatures on the said statement. He has also not disputed that the said

statement was prepared by the assessee for presenting it to the bank for

obtaining higher credit limit. From the said statement and from the quantity

of stock shown in the accounts, the difference was noticed, as the assessee

has shown more quantity of stock in the aforesaid statement, which was to

be presented to the bank. It was found that in case the quantity of stock in

statement 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 only

explanation given by the assessee is that a wrong date of 31.1.1990 instead

of 16.2.1990 was put on the aforesaid statement. This explanation can not be

accepted, being not satisfactory, and the aforesaid addition was made by the

Assessing Officer, which has been rightly upheld by the CIT (A) as well as

the ITAT, while recording a finding of fact to the effect that the addition

was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement prepared and

signed by the assessee for furnishing the same to the bank and on account of

non-explanation of the said variation.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no substantial

question of law arises from the order of the ITAT.

Dismissed.

                                          ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
                                                   JUDGE


December 17, 2009                        ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR )
ndj                                               JUDGE