Case Law Details
Suraj Bhan Oil Private Limited Vs DCIT (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The entire controversy revolves around the question as to whether the assessee has been able to provide explanation for difference of stock between the stock submitted to the bank as on 28/3/2005 and the stock indicated in the audit report for the period ending 31/03/2005 relating to raw material, stock-in-process and finished goods. No evidence has been produced by the assessee of sale and purchase of raw material and finished goods during the period 28.03.2005 to 31.03.2005 as found by the Assessing Officer in the previous assessment order, as well as, set aside assessment order, as affirmed by the Tribunal. Hence, the entire gamut of matter is in the realm of facts and does not give rise to substantial question of law. Even otherwise, as has been held in catena of decisions by different High Courts, the practice followed by Industrialists declaring larger than actual quantity of stock to the Bank for the purpose of getting higher loans or over-draft facility, in fact, is not recognized as conforming to the fiscal discipline by Courts, Authorities and Tribunals. Such a tendency tantamount to commercial immorality for obtaining unjustified gains in the form of higher credit facility or loans etc. by showing incorrect statement of stock position to the Bank. In any case, the burden lies upon the assessee to reconcile the difference of stock position presented to the bank with the stock position mentioned in the books of accounts/audit report (Dhansi Ram Aga Vs. CIT (201 ITR 192, Gauhati High Court, Ramanlal Kacharulal Tejmal Vs. CIT (146 ITR 368 (Bom), Pooranlal Raj Kumar Vs. CIT (107 CTR Cal. 27), CIT Vs. A. Yunuskunju (189 ITR 672, Kerala), CIT Vs. South India Rubber Products (166 ITR 687 (Kerala) and Coimbatore Spng. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1974)95 ITR 375, referred to).
Once the Assessing Officer finds that there was excess stock, in absence of explanation by the assessee, the conclusion is inescapable that the excess stock, if any, was from undisclosed sources. Further, once the assessee’s explanation, if any, has not been accepted, the resultant position is that there was excess stock un-disclosed in the books of accounts and non disclosure was only with a view to suppress the income.
Consequently, this Court up-helds the order of Assessing Officer dated 31/3/2013 (Annexure P/4) and that of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 5/4/2021 (Annexure P/6) taking the view that the excess stock represented the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
