2013 (9) TMI 1065 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of sale price - trading addition - Held that - Without pinpointing out the defect how the sale price was not correct, the Assessing Officer could not have estimated the sale price on the basis of rates of closing stock or some other notional basis. However, at the same time there is no justification for selling particularly the rice DB at much lower price than the closing stock price or opening stock price. Therefore, in order to prevent the leakage of Revenue, we are of the opinion that the estimated addition of ₹ 2 lakhs is required to be made and accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to make the addition of ₹ 2 lakhs on trading account.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against addition to income on account of alleged difference in opening stock price and sale price, challenge to interest levied under section 234B, consideration of submissions before CIT(A), and comparison of sale price with opening stock price.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the addition of Rs. 41,24,000 to the income of the assessee due to a perceived difference in opening stock price and sale price. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the sale price compared to the opening stock price, leading to the addition. The assessee argued that the sale price was justified due to the nature of the items sold, such as bardana, rice bran, and rice DB, which undergo various processes affecting their value. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, prompting the appeal.

2. The assessee contended that without identifying any specific error, the sale price should not have been altered. The argument emphasized that the closing stock price should not dictate the sale price. The tribunal acknowledged the lack of justification for significant discrepancies in pricing, particularly for rice DB. Consequently, a partial allowance was granted, reducing the addition to Rs. 2 lakhs to prevent revenue loss, specifically for the rice DB, while overturning the CIT(A) decision.

3. Additionally, the challenge to the interest levied under section 234B was addressed. The tribunal found no basis for the interest charge in the circumstances of the case, deeming it arbitrary and unjustified. The submission made before the CIT(A) was not adequately considered, leading to an erroneous decision regarding the interest levy.

4. The tribunal critically analyzed the arguments presented by both parties. While the assessee's contentions regarding the sale price were partially accepted, the overall decision favored a reduced addition to prevent revenue leakage. The judgment highlighted the importance of justifying pricing discrepancies and ensuring proper assessment to maintain tax integrity. The appeal was partly allowed, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in tax assessments and considerations.