2015 (3) TMI 1306 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of difference in stock statement furnished to bank and the one shown in the books of accounts - Held that - As decided in CIT-IV Hyderabad vs. M/s. Sri Taraka Jewellers 2013 (7) TMI 1091 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT there cannot be an addition of difference in stock statement furnished to bank and the one shown in the books of accounts. As during survey nothing is found or brought on record to show that on physical verification the stock found was in excess of the stock recorded in the books of account. It was explained by the assessee that the stock statement furnished to the bank was on estimate basis but the stock shown in the assessment proceedings was based on actual physical verification. As such there was no reason to reject the books of account of the assessee and no addition is called for solely on account of the difference in value of the stock submitted to the bank and the value of the stock shown in the accounts presented for assessment - Decided against revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of unexplained investment in excess stock
2. Admission of additional evidences during appellate proceedings
3. Failure to allow opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine additional evidences
4. Variation in stock value and justification by the assessee
5. Reliance on previous judicial decisions
6. Direction for assessment year 2007-08 based on previous year's order
7. Legal grounds for deletion of addition based on High Court decision

Issue 1: Addition of unexplained investment in excess stock
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 49,68,130 made towards unexplained investment in excess stock for the assessment year 2007-2008. The Assessing Officer had determined the total income at Rs. 52,56,294 by making various additions, including the aforementioned amount. The first appellate authority granted relief to the assessee, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Admission of additional evidences during appellate proceedings
The Revenue contended that the reconciliation statements filed by the assessee were admitted by the first appellate authority without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine them. The Revenue argued for a remand back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the reconciliation statements and subsequent disposal of the case.

Issue 3: Failure to allow opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine additional evidences
The Revenue emphasized that the Assessing Officer should have been given an opportunity to examine the additional evidences admitted during the appellate proceedings, as mandated by Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Issue 4: Variation in stock value and justification by the assessee
The assessee argued that no discrepancies in quantitative details for stock were found during the survey. The Assessing Officer's assumption that the first appellate authority had directed the addition for the assessment year 2007-08 was refuted by the assessee, who highlighted legal grounds for the deletion of the addition.

Issue 5: Reliance on previous judicial decisions
The Revenue relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court regarding substandard morality in stock inflation. However, the assessee opposed this argument, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision that disallowed additions based on differences in stock statements furnished to the bank and those in the books of accounts.

Issue 6: Direction for assessment year 2007-08 based on previous year's order
The Tribunal clarified that the first appellate authority had not directed the addition in question for the assessment year 2007-08 while disposing of the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds based on this clarification.

Issue 7: Legal grounds for deletion of addition based on High Court decision
The Tribunal, following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, held that no addition should be made solely based on differences in stock values submitted to the bank and those in the accounts presented for assessment. As the High Court's decision had a binding effect, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objection.

This detailed analysis provides insights into the various issues raised, arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal based on legal principles and precedents.

← Previous Next →