JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 31-5-2001 [reported as Relaxo Footwear v. ITO (2001) 23 DTC 369 (Jod-Trib) : (2001) 73 TTJ (Jod-Trib) 712 (Jod-Trib]. The question suggested by the revenue in this appeal as a substantial question of law involved in this case is as under :
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding that stock statement submitted to the bank cannot be considered an authentic piece of evidence for making addition and thereby deleting the additions made for undisclosed investment in stock as well as consequential effect of sale ?”
2. Having perused the order of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal for consideration in this appeal.
The assessee has shown the closing stock in his books of account for the assessment year 1992-93 at Rs. 2,36,450 as on 31-3-1992, and income to the tune of Rs. 1,04,437. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing authority came across the stock submitted to the bank wherefrom the assessee was enjoying loan facility revealing closing stock at much higher amount. For this discrepancy, the assessee was given show-cause notice for making addition of Rs. 2,89,700. In response the assessee submitted details about his purchase and sale during the previous year in question and stated that since he, was having loan facility from the bank, he has deliberately inflated the stock, position so as to avail higher limit of the credit from the bank. This explanation submitted by the assessee was not accepted by the assessing officer as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, found that in the present case, there was no physical control over the stock pledged with the bank and it remained with the assessee himself that is why in that instance it. was easier for the assessee to have availed higher credit facility by inflating the stock position to the bank.
The Tribunal also referred to the enquiry made in the books of account and found that enquiry has not in anyway decisive to the stock position shown in the books of account and whatever extent discrepancy was found by directing investigation from the buyers and sales has been explained by the assessee. In view of these facts, the Tribunal accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee that the stock statement submitted to the bank was motivated one to be more plausible and deleted the additions made on that basis by the assessing authority.
3. The aforesaid facts clearly show that the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence including the result of investigation and details contained in the form of statement of stock submitted to the bank, has reached a definite finding that statement to bank was motivated one and it did not reflect the true position of the stock position but was rightly reflected in the books of account.
In that view of the matter, the finding reached by the Tribunal is a finding of fact which does not give rise to a question of law.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
OPEN