Held that on the question whether the excess stocks surrendered by the assessee during the survey should be taxed as a part of business income, the Tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the assessee’s bringing such transaction in its books of account and the accounting treatment thereof so as to regularise its books of account, and that this provided a credible base for the Department to bring to tax subsequent profit or loss on sale of such stock of rice in future. On the question whether the excess stock surrendered should be taxed as a part of business income, the Tribunal held that the assessee dealt in sale of foodgrains, rice and oil seeds, and the excess stocks been found during the course of survey were stocks of rice, that therefore, the investment in procurement of such stocks of rice was clearly identifiable and related to the regular business stocks of the assessee. The Tribunal therefore, held that the investment in the excess stock had to be brought to tax under the head Business income and not under the head Income from other sources On the question of lower interest charged by the firm from the wife of one of the partners, the Tribunal held that once commercial expediency for giving the advance was established, no part of the interest expenditure could be disallowed, and that therefore, neither the addition of notional interest made by the Assessing Officer nor disallowance of interest by the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified. The Tribunal found that the partners were paid interest at 12 per cent., the balance in the partners account was much more than the amount advanced to R who was the wife of one of the partners and that therefore, even the disallowance made at 4 per cent. was not justified and it should be restricted at 2 per cent. only.