9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of excessive labour charges. 2. Deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of under-valuation of closing stock of polished diamonds. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Excessive Labour Charges The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of accounts under Section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing unreliability. The AO noted that the assessee failed to produce job workers for verification and did not furnish necessary slips for the movement of rough diamonds. The AO disallowed labour charges of Rs. 56,86,937/- by comparing the average labour charges of the previous year with the current year, deeming the flat rate of Rs. 300/- per carat excessive. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the assessee was paying job work charges at an average rate of Rs. 284/- per carat in the previous year, which increased to Rs. 300/- per carat in the current year. There was no evidence that job workers denied receiving Rs. 300/- per carat. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the job workers were labour contractors, and it was not surprising that a fair percentage of labour charges remained outstanding at the end of the year. Given the lack of adverse findings, the Commissioner (Appeals) made a token disallowance of Rs. 8 lakhs and deleted the balance disallowance of Rs. 48,86,937/-. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals), noting that the AO had not brought on record any instance to show that the job workers had denied receiving Rs. 300/- per carat. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 48,86,937/- and the token disallowance of Rs. 8 lakhs, finding no infirmity or perversity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. Issue 2: Deletion of Addition on Account of Under-Valuation of Closing Stock of Polished Diamonds The AO proposed an addition of Rs. 1,72,81,354/- for under-valuation of closing stock, arguing that the average sale price for March 2002 was Rs. 7,827/- per carat, while the assessee valued the closing stock at Rs. 5,575/- per carat. The AO contended that the closing stock should be valued at cost or net realizable value, whichever is lower. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the AO relied on only three invoices for March 2002 to determine the average sale price. The assessee had consistently followed a method of valuation accepted by the department in earlier years. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that if the closing stock was valued at a higher price, the opening stock for the next year should also be valued similarly, which would result in a lower profit for the current year. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition, finding the AO's valuation based on conjectures and surmises. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, noting that the method of valuation adopted by the assessee was consistent and had been accepted in earlier years. The Tribunal found no justification for the AO to refuse the accepted method for the current year. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's conclusions on both issues were based on concurrent findings of fact and were neither unreasonable nor perverse. The appeal did not give rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference.
|
