IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
         ITA 1301/2007  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX            ..... Appellant 
 Through       Mr. R.D. Jolly, Advocate 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 KSC ENGINEERS P. LTD.                         ..... Respondent 
 Through 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                        17.01.2008 
 . 
 The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 28th February, 2007 passed by 
 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in ITA No. 1244/Del/02 
 relevant for the assessment year 1998-99.        The only question that has been 
 urged in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') 
 is with regard to the difference in the stock position, as stated by the 
 . 
 . 
 Assessee to its bank from which it had taken loans in February, 1998 and the 
 statement of closing stock as on 31st March 1998.  The Assessing Officer  was 
 not satisfied with the explanation given by the Assessee 
 ITA 1301/2007 
 Page 1 of 3 
 for the difference in the stock position, and therefore, added back an amount of 
 Rs.28,06,253/- under Section 69 C of the Act. 
 On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced the addition 
 and made it Rs.6,63,000/-. 
 The Assessee preferred a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate 
 Tribunal and submitted that a higher valuation has been shown to the bank for 
 availing higher credit facilities, but there was no  mala fide intention behind 
 it. 
 The Tribunal observed that none of the lower authorities had found any 
 material suggesting that the Assessee had any unaccounted stock.  The addition 
 made against the Assessee related to the basis of valuation adopted for the 
 closing stock, which had been disclosed by the Assessee in the previous year and 
 for which an explanation had been furnished.  On facts, the Tribunal found that 
 no discrepancy had been made out and, therefore, allowed the appeal of the 
 Assessee. 
 On these peculiar facts, we fail to understand how any question of law, 
 much less a substantial question of law arises. The conclusions  arrived   at 
 by  the  Tribunal  are   based  entirely  on  a 
 ITA 1301/2007 
 Page 2 of 3 
 factual position pertaining to the explanation given by the Assessee, which was 
 plausible.  There is no merit in the appeal. We cannot substitute our opinion 
 for that of the Tribunal. 
 Dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 MADAN B. LOKUR,J 
 . 
 . 
 V.B. GUPTA, J 
 JANUARY   17, 2008 
 raj 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 1301/2007 
 Page 3 of 3