2010 (6) TMI 652 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of alleged unexplained investment in stock.
2. Rejection of valuation of stock by the assessee.
3. Trading addition of Rs. 50,000.
4. Disallowance of petrol, depreciation on car, and telephone expenses.
5. Disallowance of staff welfare and entertainment expenses.

Summary:

1. Addition on account of alleged unexplained investment in stock:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 21,07,651 confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained investment in stock. The CIT(A) had reduced the addition from Rs. 70,46,946 to Rs. 53,47,294 by allowing a deduction of 13% for discounts. The Tribunal found that the valuation method adopted by the survey party was erroneous and the assessee's method of valuing stock at the lower of cost or net realizable value was consistent and supported by purchase invoices. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, rejecting the addition u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. Rejection of valuation of stock by the assessee:
The CIT(A) rejected the valuation of stock by the assessee, which was based on purchase invoices and consistent past practice. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not accepting the assessee's valuation, which was supported by evidence and consistent with the method prescribed u/s 145A of the Act. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.

3. Trading addition of Rs. 50,000:
The CIT(A) deleted the ad hoc trading addition of Rs. 50,000 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 145(3) to cover possible leakages, as there was no material or evidence to justify the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no basis for the addition.

4. Disallowance of petrol, depreciation on car, and telephone expenses:
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance of these expenses to 10% as against 20% made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to be reasoned and based on appreciation of facts, and thus upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

5. Disallowance of staff welfare and entertainment expenses:
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs. 16,444 out of staff welfare expenses and Rs. 11,440 out of entertainment expenses, finding that these expenses were incurred for business purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in it.

Conclusion:
The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.