$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Date of Decision: 27.11.2017

+     ITA 1044/2017

      PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
      (CENTRAL)-1                              ..... Appellant
                   Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing
                   Counsel with Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Sr.
                   Standing Counsel for appellant.

                        versus

      VIJAY PAL GARG                         ..... Respondent
                   Through: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai with
                   Mr. Sharad Agarwal, Advs.






      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

      S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL)

      1.    The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 260A of
      the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as `the Act') .
      The question for consideration of the Income Tax Appellate
      Tribunal (ITAT) was that a sum of `8,67,87,925/- was added in
      the course of search assessment conducted in the case of
      M/s Gee Ispat Group of companies.        The search of those
      companies took place on 07.01.2010 for A.Y. 2010-11, was
      completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and substantial
      additions were made.









ITA No.1044/2017                                               Page 1
      2.    The assessee ­ sole proprietor of M/s Deshraj Ashutosh
      involved in the business of sale and purchase of foodgrains on
      commission basis, was saddled with petitioner's liability on
      account of difference and discrepancy in the stock. The AO
      was of the opinion that an addition of `8,67,87,925/- was
      justified on account of the discrepancy. The Appellate
      Commissioner was satisfied with the assessee's explanation
      with respect to inflated statement of stock with the bankers and
      noted that no discrepancy in the stock statements as appearing
      from the physical verification and that apparent from the books
      of account emerged. The amount was, therefore, deleted. The
      ITAT upheld the findings of the CIT(A).
      3.    This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the
      concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arises
      as the issues pertain to pure appreciation of facts.
            The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.


                                       S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J



                                       SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
      NOVEMBER 27, 2017
      kks




ITA No.1044/2017                                                 Page 2