IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 874 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.9.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana ….. Appellant vs. M/s Jay Kay Wears (P) Ltd), Ludhiana …..Respondent CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: - Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. M/s H.O. Arora, S.K.Mukhi and Rajiv Sharma, Advocates for respondent HEMANT GUPTA, J Revenue in the present appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) against the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short the ‘Tribunal’), has sought the following substantial question of law: - “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,96,349/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of excess stock found during the survey operation u/s 133A of I.T. Act, 1961.” A perusal of the order passed by Tribunal shows that a survey under Section 133A of the Act was carried out ITA No. 874 of 2010 by the Income Tax Officer on 8.11.2002. On the physical verification, position of the stock was found to be Rs. 66,11,051/- whereas as per the books of account, the stock value was Rs. 35,70,775/-. The explanation of the assessee was that some stock of the sister concern M/s Jay Kay Expo & Knit Fab were also lying at the premises of the assessee which were counted as the stock of the assessee during the survey. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted the explanation and addition of Rs. 17,96,349/- was deleted as there was no discrepancy in the stocks of goods of the companies when considered together. It is the said finding which has been accepted by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of revenue. We do not find that the question raised is a question of law. It is a question of fact that whether there was discrepancy in the stocks or on account of the stocks of sister concern i.e. M/s Jay Kay Knit Fab. The discrepancy has been found to be explained by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE 28.9.2011 preeti 2