COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA vs. NEW PB. SKIN CO SAMARALA ROAD LDH

PDF · subscribers
ITR/31/1997HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01035396199722 November 2006Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,56,814/- by the Tribunal was sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the principle that a statement furnished to a bank cannot be taken as conclusive evidence, and if the assessee provides a valid explanation for the difference in stock valuation, an addition solely on that ground is not justified. The Court found that the revenue's counsel could not demonstrate that the Tribunal's view was perverse, especially considering the concession made by the department's representative before the Tribunal. Therefore, the question of law was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The assessee is New Punjab Skin Co., Ludhiana, and the revenue is the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. The assessment year in question is 1987-88. The order under challenge is the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order dated 27.02.1992 in ITA No.1410/CHANDI/90. The dispute pertains to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,56,814/-. The Assessing Officer made this addition due to a difference between the stock value shown in the assessee's books of account and the stock statement filed with banks. The CIT(A) had reduced this addition, but the ITAT deleted it entirely based on a concession by the department's representative, referencing earlier Tribunal orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,56,814/- made on account of the difference between the value of stock shown by the assessee in the stock statement filed before the banks and the value of stock shown in the books of account of the assessee, was sustainable in law? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation of evidence and the validity of additions based on stock discrepancies). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified. However, the judgment notes that the department's representative had conceded the issue before the Tribunal, and the learned counsel for the revenue was unable to show that the Tribunal's view was perverse.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ITR No.31 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No.31 of 1997 Date of decision:22.11.2006 Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ....Petitioner versus New Punjab Skin Co.Samrala Road, Ludhiana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. SK Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the revenue.

JUDGMENT: Following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') arising out of its order dated 27.2.1992 in ITA No.1410/CHANDI/90, for the assessment year 1987-88:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deletion of addition of Rs.2,56,814/- made on account of difference between the value of the stock shown by the assessee in the stock statement filed before the banks and the value of the stock shown in the books of account of the assessee, was sustainable in law?” The Assessing Officer found difference in the value of stock in the books of account and in the statement furnished to the bank and on that basis, made addition to the income of the assessee. Addition was reduced by the CIT(A) but the Tribunal deleted the addition on the basis of concession made by the department's representative in view of earlier orders of the Tribunal. We find that the issue has been examined in several decisions of this Court including in ITA No.358 of 2006, The Commissioner of Income tax, panchkula v. M/s. Chauhan papers Pvt. Limited, Chhoti

ITR No.31 of 1997 2 Line, Yamunanagar, decided on 12.10.2006 and it has been held that statement furnished to the bank could not be taken as conclusive and if there was a valid explanation by the assessee, the addition only on the ground of difference in value of stock as per the statement in bank account could not be justified. In the present case, learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to show that the view taken by the Tribunal is, in any manner, perverse, particularly when the department's representative had conceded the issue before the Tribunal. In view of the above, the question referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 22, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal) 'gs' Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →