SWISS GLASS COAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The following questions as formulated by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal are proposed as the substantial questions of law. “(i) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,12,97,610/- made by the AO on account of excess stock? (ii) Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not perverse inasmuch as: (a) all the details were filed before the Tribunal and the same ought to have been looked into and decided the appeal; (b) while deciding the appeal extracts of the finding of CIT(A) have been reproduced; (c) detailed paper book ought to have been looked into which has not been done.”

We heard learned Sr. Counsel Mr. S.N.Soparkar assisted by learned advocate Mr. Bhoomi Thakore, and considered the submissions. We also gone through the impugned order as well as the orders of the authorities below with reference to which the proceedings of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose.

The relevant facts in brief are that while dealing with the income-tax

1 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding the addition to be justified and confirmed the same by observing as under. “We have also perused the case records including the assessment order, the order of CIT(A) and the assessee's paper book consisting pages 1-35 and 1-

We find from page-111 of Annexure-A/5 that there is excess figure of stock shown and the assessee's claim is that this is only rough working for the purposes of Accounting Staff for the preparation of CMA data for three years. It was also the plea of the assessee that the raw material is considered, the stock as per book is more than that is mentioned in page- 111 of Annexure-A/5. We find no force in the plea of the assessee that this is only rough working as the paper was seized during the course of survey u/s.133A of the Act from the business premises of the assessee. Looking at the seized paper-111, we find that a fair working of finished goods, semi- finished goods and debtors & creditors is provided, which proves that these are financial results and the assessee could not reconcile these with the final account of the assessee. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A)”

Therefore, it is found on facts by the Tribunal that the assessee had TAXAP/523/2011 4/4 JUDGMENT failed to explain and reconcile the discrepancies which were noticed by the Assessing Officer in the stock figures as above. The conclusion reached by the two authorities and upheld by the Tribunal about discrepancy in the stock is a concurrent finding of fact. Such finding is recorded by the authorities and confirmed by the Tribunal on the basis of material before it. The Tribunal has duly examined the order of the CIT(A) on the issue and on relevant considerations, has reached its own findings.

Accordingly, no question of law, much less a substantial question can be said to be arising. It is observed and held in M.Janardhana Rao Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax [AIR 2005 SC 1309] that there is no scope for interference by the High Court in appeal under section 260A of the Act with a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding of fact.

In above facts and circumstances, no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. When no question of law arises, the appeal cannot be entertained. This Tax Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (V.M. SAHAI, J.) (N.V. ANJARIA, J.) (SN DEVU PPS)