| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1987 SLG 2652 1987 SLD 2652 (1987) 163 ITR 434 |
Delhi High Court
D.K. KAPUR AND MAHINDER NARAIN, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
D.K. KAPUR AND MAHINDER NARAIN, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of Income Tax
v.
Prem Singh & Co.
Law:
Section:
Section 143, read with section 256 of the Income-tax Act 1961 - Assessment - Additions to income - List of goods hypothecated to bank differed from stock as disclosed by account books of assessee - ITO held that extra stock disclosed in list filed with bank was undisclosed income of assessee - Tribunal found that inflated list was filed for purpose of getting loan, that for purpose of loan stock would be valued at market price whereas in books it would be valued at cost - Further accounting period closed on 12-4-1977, whereas figures obtained from bank were as on 1-3-1977 - Tribunal on aforesaid facts, deleted addition - Whether any question of law arose from Tribunal's order - Held, no FACTS The list of goods hypothecated to Bank differed from the stock-in hand as disclosed by the account books of the assessee. The ITO came to the conclusion that the extra stock disclosed in the list filed with the bank was the undisclosed income of the assessee. The Tribunal, however, referred to the practice of filing inflated lists for the purpose of getting a loan and also referred to the fact that for the purpose of a loan the stock would be valued at market price, whereas in the books is would be valued at cost. The Tribunal also noted that the accounting period closed on 12-4-1977, whereas the figures obtained from the bank were as on 1-3-1977. The Tribunal therefore, deleted the addition. On application under section 256(2). HELD No question of law arose as the stock indicated by the assessee's account books had been accepted by the Tribunal and this was a conclusion of fact from which no question of law arose. Note: The case was decided in favour of the assessee. K.K. Wadhera and D.C. Taneja for the Applicant. C.S. Aggarwal for the Respondent. JUDGMENT D.K. Kapur, J.-The questions sought to be referred by this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are as follows: "1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,704 made by the Income-tax Officer as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources on account of the difference in the position of stock as…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492