- (1.) FOLLOWING question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal), arising out of its order dated 29.11.1990 in ITA No.170/Chandi/89, for the assessment year 1982-83:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not upholding the addition of Rs.1,77,474/- made by the assessing officer on account of unaccounted sales of stock based on the statement of hypothecated stock filed by the assessee before the bank? The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of yarn from tops and follows mercantile system of accounting. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of variance in the value of stock in the books of account of the assessee and statement of hypothecated stock filed by the assessee before the Bank. The CIT(A) deleted the said addition which was affirmed by the Tribunal. The CIT(A) observed that statement given to the bank was not correct and value of stock therein was exaggerated. The Tribunal accepted this finding of fact. In view of finding recorded by the CIT(A) as well as the ITR No.119 of 1995 2
(2.) TRIBUNAL that the statement of hypothecated stock filed by the assessee before the Bank was not a correct statement, which finding is not shown to be perverse. It is well settled that explanation of the assessee about the discrepancy in the value of stock as per stock register and as per declaration given to the bank is a question to be decided having regard to the facts of an individual case. Accordingly, in our view, the TRIBUNAL was right in not upholding the addition of Rs.1,77,474/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in statement of stock furnished to the Bank. The question referred is, thus, answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 15, 2006 (Rajesh Bindal) 'gs' Judge;