MATRICKS MAKETING, v. JCIT CIR 21(2),

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAG HAVAN (JM) M.A. NO. 124/MUM/2009 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 8091/MUM/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2001-02 M/S. MATRIX MARKETING 5/20 PAREKH KUNJ SWAMISHI VALLABHJI ROAD SION (W) MUMBAI-400 022 PAN - AABFM 0144M VS. JT. CIT. CIR. 21(2) PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN B.K. COMPLEX BANDRA (E) MUMBAI-400 051 (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: SHRI N. JAYENDRAN DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI MOHAMMED USMAN O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16 07 794/- TO THE CLOSING STOCK. THE ITAT ALLOWED THE DEPARTMENTAL A PPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS TO BE UPHELD IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE COIMA BTORE SPINNING AND WEAVING CO LTD VS CIT 95 ITR 375 WHE REIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS:- ADDITION DUE TO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VALUE OF STOCK A S RECORDED IN BOOKS AND S FOUND IN THE DECLARATION TO BANK FOR GETTING OVERDRAFT. THE ALLEGED PRACTICE SAID TO BE FOLLOWED BY BUSINES S HOUSES OF DECLARING LARGE STOCKS TO BE BANKS FOR TH E PURPOSE OF GETTING HIGHER LOANS OR OVERDRAFT FACILI TIES HAS NEITHER BEEN SHOWN TO EXIST NOR RECOGNIZED IN COMMERCIAL CIRCLES OR BY COURTS AND EVEN ASSUMING T HAT M.A. NO. 124/M/09 2 SUCH A PRACTICE EXISTS THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT EXPECTE D TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF SUCH SUBSTANDARD MORALITY O N THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENABLE THEM TO GO BAN K ON THEIR OWN SWORN STATEMENTS GIVEN TO THE BANK AS TO THE STOCKS HELD OR HYPOTHECATED BY THEM IN THE BANKS. ALSO IN THE CASE OF JAI CHAND KANJI & CO VS CIT 1 57 ITR 451 IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS:- ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEE N STOCK AS RECORDED IN ASSESEES BOOKS AND STOCK AS PLEDGED WITH THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE T O SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN SUCH DIFFERENCE. THE TRIBUN AL CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH DIFFEREN CE. NO QUESTION OF LAW AROSE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS WE ALLOW THE DEPART MENTAL APPEAL. 2. THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AFT ER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE SUBMISSION MADE IN THE PRESENT M.A WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL HENCE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE WE DISMISS THE M.A FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2010 SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 20 TH AUGUST 2010 RJ M.A. NO. 124/M/09 3 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR B BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI M.A. NO. 124/M/09 4 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 10.8.2010 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 11 . 8 .2010 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______