2016 (9) TMI 1291 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on unexplained investment in excess stock - Held that - In terms of ld AR s contention that there was no retraction but reconciliation of facts and figures as compared to what has been stated and documented at the time of survey, it is noted that though the ld CIT(A) has initially made an observation that there was no immediate retraction and it is a case of delayed retraction and not reliable. At the same time, he has gone through the assessee s letter dated 30.03.2011 relating to unrecorded purchase bills at the time of survey and expenses in the books of accounts, excess valuation of the stock etc., compared it with the position in the return of income, taken into consideration the remand report of the AO and gone through each of the contentions raised by the ld AR along with the rejoinder to the remand report in terms of unrecorded purchases, valuation, set off etc and has come to a well-reasoned decision. We see no reason to interfere with the order of ld CIT(A) and the same is hereby confirmed. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Sustaining additions for unexplained investment in excess stock.
2. Evidentiary value of statements recorded during survey under section 133A.
3. Consideration of unposted purchase bills and expenses.
4. Valuation of physical stock.
5. Reliability of retraction and reconciliation of facts post-survey.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sustaining Additions for Unexplained Investment in Excess Stock:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the addition of ?44,05,090/- for unexplained investment in excess stock. The survey conducted on 03.02.2011 revealed a discrepancy between the physical stock valued at ?66,98,216/- and the stock as per books valued at ?16,95,184/-. The assessee initially surrendered the difference of ?50,03,032/- during the survey, which was later reduced by the CIT(A) to ?44,05,090/- after allowing a set-off of ?5,98,212/- for profit on unrecorded sales.

2. Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Survey Under Section 133A:
The assessee argued that statements recorded under section 133A do not have evidentiary value as they are not recorded under oath. This argument is supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. S. Kadar Khan & Sons, which states that admissions made during such statements cannot be the sole basis for additions.

3. Consideration of Unposted Purchase Bills and Expenses:
The assessee contended that certain purchase bills amounting to ?10,89,385/- and related freight expenses of ?2,67,429/- were not posted in the books at the time of the survey. The CIT(A) rejected this claim, noting inconsistencies in the amounts claimed by the assessee at different times and the absence of such bills during the survey. The CIT(A) also highlighted that the bills were handwritten by a single person and were not found during the survey.

4. Valuation of Physical Stock:
The assessee disputed the valuation of certain items in the physical stock, arguing that the rates used were higher than the actual cost. The CIT(A) upheld the valuation by the AO, noting that the rates were based on the purchase bills provided by the assessee during the survey. The CIT(A) found the assessee's lower valuation claims unreliable as they were based on bills not found during the survey.

5. Reliability of Retraction and Reconciliation of Facts Post-Survey:
The assessee's retraction and subsequent reconciliation of facts were deemed unreliable by the CIT(A) due to the delayed nature of the retraction and inconsistencies in the claims. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee initially surrendered the excess stock without mentioning unposted bills or expenses, and only raised these issues later.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the addition of ?44,05,090/- for unexplained investment in excess stock. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned decision, which carefully considered the assessee's submissions, the AO's remand report, and relevant legal precedents. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.