1999 PTD 3093 (PLP)

V. V. KAMAT, J.

The Revenue wants answer to the following questions which is divided three-fold: "(i) The Tribunal is right in deleting the addition towards suppression of closing stock? (ii) The Tribunal is right in deleting the addition without independently considering the case on merits? (iii) Should not the Tribunal have examined or remitted the cases for examination of the bank officers?" The whole controversy centres around a sum of Rs.1,60,192 which even the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had written off representing the same to be the value of damaged goods. The assessee is a registered firm having a business in the export of sea food. The material on record shows that in the assessment year 1976-77 with reference to the total business turnover of Rs.72,34,394 goods damaged were of the sum of Rs.1,60,

192. The goods are what are known as sea food normally prone to damage if not properly taken 'care of. The material also shows that any difficulty with the storage facility, adds to the ideal situation for damage. It is on record that the strike of engineers of the Kerala State Electricity Board can also contribute to the decaying of the goods in the cold storage. This actually happened in 1974. The material also further stares in the face of the record that the electric supply especially to the needed cold storages gets not only intermittently disrupted but also continuously disrupted as an after effect of lightning and thunder which is also not uncommon. It appears that the First Appellate Authority

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)--? Expected the Income-tax Officer to verify the stock by summoning the bank clerks alongwith their records before accepting the contents straightaway. Alternatively the First Appellate Authority

Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)

could be explained as stated above and ultimately the First Appellate Authority accepting the submissions ordered deletion of the amount of Rs.1,60,192. ?????????? The same view is elaborated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 13 of its order. We find that the explanation is concurrently accepted by the two???????? fact-finding authorities and, therefore, it would be too much in the day to consider the submissions spelt out through the questions that the matter should have been remanded. There is no error in the concurrent consideration of the question, and even otherwise with regard to a situation relating to the assessment year 1976-77 dealt with by the Income?tax Officer by order, dated September 17, 1979 and by order of the First Appellate Authority, dated May 16, 1980, reinforced by the Tribunal by its order, dated April 19, 1982, the situation needs no kind of disturbance. For the above reasons, we answer the question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for passing consequential orders. M.B.A./3058/FC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly