Law:

Section:

Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments Addition made on account of difference in closing stock furnished before bank authorities for availing of credit facility as against same disclosed in books of account furnished before income-tax authorities was not justified where it was found that though assessee had submitted bank statement with inflated price of stock, there was no difference in quantity of stock [In favour of assessee] Addition was made on account of difference in the closing stock furnished before the bank authorities for availing of credit facility as against the same disclosed in the books of account furnished before the income-tax authorities. It was found that the assessee had submitted the bank statement with inflated price of the stock, while there was no difference in quantity of stock. Held that, the Assessing Officer had found that the assessee had submitted the bank statement with inflated price of the stock while there was no difference in quantity of the stock. As held in Ashok Kumar v. ITO [2006] 201 CTR (J&K) 178, addition could not be made on the basis of difference between closing stock declared in the trading account and the stock shown in the statement submitted by the assessee to the bank as the stock position shown to the bank was on estimate basis and inflated value was shown to avail of more credit from bank. In view of the above, there was no justification for making any addition on the allegation of inflated stock shown to the bank. Whether the value of the stock shown in the books of account was genuine or not had been considered by the Tribunal and considering the facts discussed by the Tribunal there was no reason to hold that the finding of the Tribunal was perverse. CASES REFERRED TO Ashok Kumar v. ITO [2006] 201 CTR 178 (J & K) (para 3), Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 375 (Mad.) (para 3), CIT v. Khan and Sirohi Steel Rolling Mills [2006]200 CTR 595 (All.) (para 3), CIT v. N. Swamy [2000] 241 ITR 363 (Mad.) (para 3) andDhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 192 (Gauhati) (para 3). Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt and Manish R. Bhatt for the Appellant JUDGMENT Heard…

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