High Court Of Kerala
CIT vs. Chemmeens
Asst. Year 1976-77
K.S. Paripoornan & K.A. Nayar, JJ.
Original Petition No. 1151 of 1987
9th January, 1989
P.K. Ravindranatha Menon & N.R.K. Niar, for the Petitioner: P.C. Chacko & Roy Chocko, for the Revenue
K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J.:
This is a petition filed by the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, to direct the Tribunal to refer certain questions of law arising out of its order dated April 19, 1985. The respondent herein is an assessee to income-tax. The matter relates to the asst. yr. 1976-77. The assessee is a firm doing business in the export of prawns and other sea foods. It declared the value of the closing stock at Rs. 3,22,062 in the P & L a/c. The ITO found that the assessee had declared its closing stock to the bank as on December 19, 1975, at Rs. 37,74,953 and on December 31, 1975, at Rs. 19,88,145. There was discrepancy between the value of stock disclosed to the bank and to the Department. The ITO worked out the difference and made an addition of Rs. 12,65,658. In appeal, the AAC deleted the addition. This was affirmed by the Tribunal. The application filed by the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act was rejected. It is thereafter that the Revenue has filed this original petition.
We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. P. K. Ravindranatha Menon, as also counsel for the assessee-respondent, Mr. Chacko. It is common ground that there is discrepancy in the value of stock disclosed to the bank and to the Department. The sole question is whether the ITO was justified in working out the difference and in effecting the addition. The plea of the assessee was that it was compelled to give inflated stock statements to the banks for the last so many years to raise finance. It was stated that it was being done in the previous years also and what was done in the instant year was only a repetition of the said practice. This seems to have been accepted by the Tribunal in a sense.
Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the view that questions Nos. 1 and 4 formulated in para. 7 of the original petition are questions of law which do arise out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to refer questions Nos. 1 and 4, extracted hereinbelow, along with the statement of the case for the decision of this Court.
” 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the assessee had declared the value of stock as on December 19, 1975 at Rs. 37,74,953 in a statement furnished to the âbank’, the Tribunal is right in relying on the profit and loss account wherein the assessee had declared the closing stock value at Rs. 3,22,061 ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that âthere is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT (A) in his deleting the addition of Rs. 12,65,658 although for a different reason’ and is not the deletion and the reasons of the appellate authorities for the deletion wrong, untenable, unwarranted, illogical and unsupported by relevant materials ?”
4. The original petition is allowed to the above extent.
[Citation : 177 ITR 160]