2010 (6) TMI 829 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Whether Tribunal was justified in cancelling addition towards difference in opening stock and closing stock amounting to above Rs. 80 lakhs.

The High Court of Kerala, in the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair and Mr. Justice P.S. Gopinathan on 08/06/2010, addressed the question raised in the appeal filed by the department regarding the cancellation of addition towards the difference in the opening stock and closing stock amounting to above Rs. 80 lakhs. The transaction in question was between the respondent and a subsidiary company, both being assessees in the same area. The Assessing Officer was directed to furnish details of assessment pertaining to the subsidiary company, which revealed a difference in closing stock and opening stock of above Rs. 83 lakhs for the accounting year 2002-2003. It was observed that the respondent had accounted the stock as opening stock instead of accounting purchase on 1st April, 2002. The protective assessment was made on the same stock in the hands of the subsidiary company. The court considered the submissions made by the Standing Counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the assessee, where it was agreed that the assessee would not press the addition pertaining to the opening stock in the hands of the subsidiary company, M/s. Karinos Weave Private Ltd. The appeal was dismissed on the specific condition that the assessee would not contest the opening stock addition of the subsidiary company, but would be free to challenge the ground pertaining to gross profit addition.

In conclusion, the High Court of Kerala addressed the issue of cancellation of addition towards the difference in opening stock and closing stock in a case involving a respondent and its subsidiary company. The judgment highlighted the accounting treatment of stock by the respondent, leading to a protective assessment on the same stock in the hands of the subsidiary company. The court's decision was based on the agreement between the parties regarding the contesting of specific grounds related to the subsidiary company's stock. The judgment provided clarity on the conditions under which the appeal was dismissed, allowing the assessee to challenge certain aspects while agreeing not to press the addition pertaining to the opening stock of the subsidiary company.