PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 vs. VIJAY PAL GARG,
What did the High Court hold?
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding the assessee's explanation regarding inflated stock statements satisfactory and noting no discrepancy between physical verification and book accounts. The ITAT upheld this deletion.
What were the facts?
During a search assessment on a group of companies, a sum of Rs. 8,67,87,925/- was added to the assessee's income. The assessee was a sole proprietor involved in the foodgrains business.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made on account of stock discrepancy was justified, and if concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities preclude a substantial question of law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA No.1044/2017 Page 1
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 27.11.2017
+ ITA 1044/2017
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1
..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel for appellant.
versus
VIJAY PAL GARG
..... Respondent Through: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai with Mr. Sharad Agarwal, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL)
The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The question for consideration of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was that a sum of `8,67,87,925/- was added in the course of search assessment conducted in the case of M/s Gee Ispat Group of companies. The search of those companies took place on 07.01.2010 for A.Y. 2010-11, was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and substantial additions were made.
ITA No.1044/2017 Page 2
The assessee – sole proprietor of M/s Deshraj Ashutosh involved in the business of sale and purchase of foodgrains on commission basis, was saddled with petitioner’s liability on account of difference and discrepancy in the stock. The AO was of the opinion that an addition of `8,67,87,925/- was justified on account of the discrepancy. The Appellate Commissioner was satisfied with the assessee’s explanation with respect to inflated statement of stock with the bankers and noted that no discrepancy in the stock statements as appearing from the physical verification and that apparent from the books of account emerged. The amount was, therefore, deleted. The ITAT upheld the findings of the CIT(A). 3. This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arises as the issues pertain to pure appreciation of facts.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J NOVEMBER 27, 2017 kks
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026