The burden of proof lies on the party making the allegation, and in this case, the court found that the photocopy of the stock statement was not sufficient to impose additional burden on the assessee without confronting the original statement and providing evidence of verification by the bank.

N.K.Sud, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short "the Tribunal"), dt. 13th Nov., 2003, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), Bathinda, dt. 20th March, 1998.

2. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO confronted the assessee with a photocopy of the stock statement furnished to the bank for availing the overdraft. As per this statement, the assessee had a stock of rice Permal weighing 2,300 quintals whereas as per the balance sheet as on 31st March, 1985, there was stock of 818.30 quintals. The assessee contested the said statement and claimed that the same had not been filed by it and, therefore, it should be confronted with the original statement. Even the signatures on the said statement were denied. The AO observed that the bank authorities had expressed their inability to produce the original statement and claimed that a certified copy certified by the bank was as good as original. Accordingly, the AO treated the value of 1,481.7 quintals of excess stock as per the bank statement, as income for which inaccurate particulars had been furnished and made an addition of Rs. 4,44,510 to the total income of the assessee vide order dt. 27th March, 1997.

3. Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Bathinda, who, vide his order dt. 20th March, 1998, allowed the appeal. He observed that it was a factual position that the assessee had not been confronted with the original statement filed with the bank and that even otherwise the statement filed with the bank was in the nature of stock hypothecation and not pledge and, as such, the stock remained in the possession and under the lock and key of the assessee. He further observed that there was no evidence to the effect that the stock hypothecated with the bank was ever verified by the bank. He also held that the AO could not impose extra burden on the basis of photocopy of the bank statement when the original documents were missing from the bank record. Accordingly, the said addition was deleted.

4. Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed vide the impugned order.

5. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the credit facility was against hypothecation of stock and not against the pledge. It was also observed that except for the photocopy of this stock statement allegedly furnished to the bank, the AO has not brought any material on record to show that the assessee, in fact, possessed stocks as reflected in the said statement as against the stock depicted in the balance sheet. It was also found that the books of account were regularly maintained by the assessee and had been accepted by the Department.

6. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the orders of the authorities below. The Tribunal and the CIT(A), on the basis of the material on record, have taken a possible view which has not been shown to be perverse. Thus, in the absence of any substantial question of law, no case has been made out for interference in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two authorities. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.