Law:

Section:

Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Additions to income Where Assessing Officer called upon assessee to explain discrepancy, namely, excess stock as recorded by excise authorities vis-a-vis stock as per books, and made addition on that account which was sustained by Commissioner (Appeals) but without dealing with reasons assigned by Commissioner (Appeals) for sustaining addition, Tribunal deleted addition, Tribunal's order could not be sustained The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the discrepancy, namely, excess stock as recorded by the excise authorities vis-a-vis the stock as per books. In the absence of satisfactory explanation the Assessing Officer made an addition. The Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the addition but without dealing with the reasons assigned by the Commissioner for sustaining the addition. The Tribunal deleted the addition. Held that apart from tendering a bald explanation that there could be variation in mentioning of stocks of one quality as against stocks of another quality, the assessee had not chosen to discharge initial onus which lay on it to explain with reference to its own books of account as well as statutory records the assessee was required to maintain under the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules. The Tribunal had failed to singularly deal with this aspect of the matter as to how the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in calling upon the assessee to explain the discrepancy and on failure of the assessee to tender a cogent explanation drawing an adverse inference. The Tribunal had, therefore, failed to approach the issue in a proper manner. In other words, the order of the Tribunal did not reflect that the Tribunal was in fact aware of the controversy before it or what was the issue that was to be decided by it, what were the factors and evidence for and against the assessee, and in what manner the assessee, on whom the burden lay, had discharged the same. The impugned order of Tribunal, therefore, could not be sustained and was required to be quahed. JUDGMENT ( Oral Judgment) D.A. Mehta, J.-The appellant Revenue has proposed the following question : "Whether the…

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