ORDER SHEET G.A.No.2389 of 2004 ITA 237 of 2003 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE M/S.MEDICINE HOUSE Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3),KOLKATA & ANR BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 26th February, 2015. For Appellant/assessee : Mrs.Sutapa Roychowdhury, Advocate. For Respondent/revenue : Mr.M.P.Agarwal,Advocate Court : subject matter of challenge in this appeal is judgement and order dated 28th May, 2003 by which learned Tribunal dismissed appeal preferred by assessee agreeing with CIT (Appeal) and assessing officer that assessee had failed to give any cogent or convincing evidence to reconcile value of closing stock disclosed in income-tax return and to mortgagee bank. assessee has come up in appeal. facts and circumstances of case, briefly stated, are as follows. 2 For assessment years 1997- 98 and 1998-99 it was noticed that closing stock shown in return was far less than closing stock shown before United Commercial Bank. To be precise, for assessment year 1997- 98 closing stock shown in return was for sum of Rs.7,28,793/- whereas closing stock furnished before bank was for sum of Rs. 12,73,618/-. Similarly, for assessment year 1998-99 closing stock shown in profit and loss account was sum of Rs.9,30,314.50p whereas closing stock disclosed to bank was for sum of Rs.22,99,229.50p. assessee claimed that closing stock shown in P/L Account was valued at cost whereas estimated value was given to bank. aforesaid explanation was not accepted and addition was made under section 69 of Income Tax Act which has been confirmed by CIT (Appeal) and learned Tribunal. We have heard learned advocates appearing for parties. We are agreeable to concede that admission made by assessee before bank cannot be conclusive piece of evidence which may be used against him for 3 purpose of making him liable under section 69. We are also agreeable to concede that assessee is entitled in law to explain or even to withdraw admission. Reference in this regard may be made to judgement of Apex Court in case of Chhaganlal K.Mehta vs. P.N.Haribhai reported in (1982) 1 SCC 223 wherein following views were expressed : Admissions being declarations against interest are good evidence but they are not conclusive and party is always at liberty to withdraw admissions by proving that they are either mistaken or untrue. (paragraph 21) Difficulty, however, arises from fact that assessee has taken plea that he does not have any stock register. He also has taken plea before CIT (Appeal) that quantitative details of closing stock cannot be furnished. In absence of quantitative details, contention of assessee that closing stock was valued at cost cannot be true because cost has to be applied to some quantity. Cost has to be worked out on basis of quantity 4 and rate applicable. Assuming that assessee was entitled to value closing stocks at cost but that is applicable solely to rate of goods. In absence of information with regard to quantity it was not possible for assessee to arrive at any correct valuation of closing stock. If quantity is not known or is not disclosed by assessee then closing stock shown in P/L Account is bound to be imaginary figure in which case assessing officer was well within his power to take recourse to section 69. For aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to admit appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) ssaha AR(CR) M/s. Medicine House v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 5(3),Kolkata & Anr