CHANDER KANT vs. CIT ROHTAK

ITA/507/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084622200917 December 2009Author: MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR,MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT. The Court found that the concurrent finding of fact by the CIT(A) and the ITAT was not contrary to the material on record nor perverse. The difference in stock was identified based on a statement dated 31.1.1990, signed by the assessee and prepared for the bank. The assessee did not dispute his signature or the purpose of the statement. The court noted that the assessee had shown a higher quantity of stock in the statement for the bank than in the books of accounts. The only explanation offered by the assessee was a wrong date (31.1.1990 instead of 16.2.1990) on the statement, which the court deemed unsatisfactory. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the lower appellate authorities was considered rightly done on the basis of the statement prepared and signed by the assessee for the bank and the non-explanation of the variation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chander Kant, filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1990-91. The dispute involves an addition of Rs. 1,76,790/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in stock. This addition was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequently by the ITAT. The core of the issue is a discrepancy between the stock statement prepared by the assessee for the bank and the stock appearing in the assessee's books of accounts.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order of the ITAT is perverse for making an addition of reconciled stock contrary to material on record and having recorded an unreasonable finding? (Question of law) 2. Whether the order of the ITAT in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,76,790/- representing unexplained investment of stock is perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to material placed on record, thus vitiated in law? (Question of law) 3. Whether the ITAT erred in law and fact by confirming the addition of unexplained investment in stock, disregarding its own prior direction and the reconciliation of stock furnished by the appellant? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the authorities below recorded a wrong finding of fact regarding the difference in the stock statement for the bank and the books of accounts. The assessee contended that the explanation provided was not properly appreciated, leading to an incorrect factual finding. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue's side.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 507 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 17.12.2009 Chander Kant .... APPELLANT Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ..... RESPONDENT

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the appellant-assessee.

* * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The assessee has filed this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), against the order dated 31.12.2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh `A' Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the ITAT') in ITA No. 624/Chd/2008, pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91, raising the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the order of the ITAT is perverse for making the addition of the stock reconciled which is contrary to the material on record and having recorded an unreasonable finding? (ii) Whether the order of the ITAT in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,76,790/- representing unexplained investment of stock is perverse, arbitrary and contrary to material

ITA No. 507 of 2009 -2- placed on record and

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →