COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KSC ENGINEERS P. LTD.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 1301/2007 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. R.D. Jolly, Advocate . versus . . KSC ENGINEERS P. LTD. ..... Respondent Through . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA . O R D E R 17.01.2008 . The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 28th February, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in ITA No. 1244/Del/02 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99. The only question that has been urged in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') is with regard to the difference in the stock position, as stated by the . . Assessee to its bank from which it had taken loans in February, 1998 and the statement of closing stock as on 31st March 1998. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the Assessee ITA 1301/2007 Page 1 of 3 for the difference in the stock position, and therefore, added back an amount of Rs.28,06,253/- under Section 69 C of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced the addition and made it Rs.6,63,000/-. The Assessee preferred a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and submitted that a higher valuation has been shown to the bank for availing higher credit facilities, but there was no mala fide intention behind it. The Tribunal observed that none of the lower authorities had found any material suggesting that the Assessee had any unaccounted stock. The addition made against the Assessee related to the basis of valuation adopted for the closing stock, which had been disclosed by the Assessee in the previous year and for which an explanation had been furnished. On facts, the Tribunal found that no discrepancy had been made out and, therefore, allowed the appeal of the Assessee. On these peculiar facts, we fail to understand how any question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are based entirely on a ITA 1301/2007 Page 2 of 3 factual position pertaining to the explanation given by the Assessee, which was plausible. There is no merit in the appeal. We cannot substitute our opinion for that of the Tribunal. Dismissed. . . . MADAN B. LOKUR,J . . V.B. GUPTA, J JANUARY 17, 2008 raj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA 1301/2007 Page 3 of 3