Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prem Singh and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Direct Taxation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Case No. 88 of 1982
Judge
Reported in[1987]163ITR434(Delhi)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 256(1)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentPrem Singh and Co.
Excerpt:
- .....of goods hypothecated to laxmi commercial bank differed from the stock-in-hand as disclosed by the account books of the assessed. the income-tax officer came to the conclusion that the extra stock disclosed in the list filed with the bank was the undisclosed income of the assessed. the tribunal, however, referred to the practice of filing inflated lists for the purpose of getting a loan and also referred to the fact that for the purpose of a loan the stock would be valued at market price, whereas in the books it would be valued at cost. the tribunal also noted that the accounting period closed on april 12, 1977, whereas the figures obtained from the bank were as on march 1, 1977. we think that no question of law arises as the stock indicated by the assessed's account books have been.....
Judgment:

D.K. Kapur, J.

1. The questions sought to be referred by this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are as follows :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,704 made by the Income-tax Officer as income of the assessed from undisclosed sources on amount of the difference in the position of stock as disclosed by the books of account and as shown in the account of stock hypothecated with the bank

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in taking note of the additional evidence before it which was sought to be placed by the assessed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who did not allow the same in view of rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in its observation that it is the normal practice of business to declare inflated figures of stocks to the banks for obtaining higher amounts of loan or overdraft facilities ?'

2. The Tribunal had rejected the application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the decision of the Tribunal on merits was based on a consideration of the material on the record, and raised no question of law.

3. The controversy before the Tribunal arose because the list of goods hypothecated to Laxmi Commercial Bank differed from the stock-in-hand as disclosed by the account books of the assessed. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the extra stock disclosed in the list filed with the bank was the undisclosed income of the assessed. The Tribunal, however, referred to the practice of filing inflated lists for the purpose of getting a loan and also referred to the fact that for the purpose of a loan the stock would be valued at market price, whereas in the books it would be valued at cost. The Tribunal also noted that the accounting period closed on April 12, 1977, whereas the figures obtained from the bank were as on March 1, 1977. We think that no question of law arises as the stock indicated by the assessed's account books have been accepted by the Tribunal and this is a conclusion of fact from which no question of law arises. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //