(Per : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) Challenge is to the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.4.2010 by proposing following questions of law for our consideration :
(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.26,01,030/- made on account of excess closing stock u/s. 145(3) of the Act I.T. Act?
(B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.11,00,764/- made on account of negative stock u/s.69 of the IT Act?
First issue pertains to addition of Rs.26 lakh(rounded off) on account of excess closing stock. Tribunal noted the fact that CIT(Appeals) considered relevant facts with regard to purchase as well as sales of the assessee and had also found that all these details were fully verifiable. It was further noted by the Tribunal that in regular course of business, all the Registers were maintained by the assessee respondent. Not only that but customers to whom sales were made were also identifiable being pharmaceutical company. Tribunal was also further actuated by the fact that the Assessing Officer had not given credit of any negative stock and the stock of huge amount was destroyed due to rain for which insurance claimed was also appreciated by CIT(Appeals). After noting elaborately all those details, it confirmed the order of CIT(Appeals). Issue being essentially factual in nature and Tribunal having based its findings on the materials placed before it, this question calls for no interference.
Second question pertains to addition of sum of Rs.11,00,764/- made on account of negative stock under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. Taking clue from earlier question, Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not only appreciated the preliminary contention of the adjustment of negative stock against the difference in value of stock, but also examined the fact pertaining to the loss of stock due to rains. Appreciating the findings of CIT(Appeals), Tribunal noted that the stock being essence, colours and flavours has limited shelf line which would not be saleable after six months and selling it beyond the stipulated period would amount to criminal offence. Noting all these details, the amount was deleted by CIT(Appeals). Same has been approved by the Tribunal.
We find no error in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. Appeal proposing no other question of law, much-less substantial question of law, same is dismissed.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (Ms.
Sonia Gokani,J.) (raghu) Top