2011 (5) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Search and seizure - Block assessment - Undisclosed income - the search party did not visit all the business branches of the appellant and the valuation made by the Department covered only the Kolkata and some of the branches of Tirupur. The figures of the stock at Mumbai Tirpur (not covered by the Department) Delhi and stocks in transits were supplied by the appellant - Held that - the Trial balance sheet and the Profit and Loss account tallied and has further noted that the gross profit rate of the appellant was acceptable - in the absence of any finding that any portion of the books of account maintained by the assessee was fictitious or contained wrong entry the Assessing Officer was not entitled to make an average of discount without discarding the actual discount given by the assessee for the relevant year as appearing from the books of account.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Valuation of closing stock for income tax assessment.
2. Determination of undisclosed income based on stock valuation.
3. Discrepancy in discount rates for stock valuation.
4. Imposition of surcharge on block assessment.

Comprehensive analysis:
1. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 challenged the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the valuation of closing stock for the block period from April 1, 1990, to January 24, 2001. The appellant, a public limited company manufacturing hosiery goods, had its stock valued by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 33,01,24,963/- based on wholesale price, discounts, and gross profit ratio. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) later found that the books of account were correct and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the acceptance of the 29.13% discount. The Tribunal, however, determined the stock value at Rs. 19,55,93,534/- based on an average discount rate of 27% for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, leading to the current appeal.

2. The primary issue addressed was whether the authorities erred in assessing the income of the appellant based on average profit or discount without any finding of fictitious entries in the books of account. The Court noted that the search operation did not cover all business branches, and the appellant voluntarily provided stock details not visited by the Department. The Assessing Officer confirmed the correctness of the books of account and the gross profit rate. The Court held that without evidence of fictitious entries, the Assessing Officer should accept the actual discounts given by the assessee, setting aside the Tribunal's modification of the discount rate.

3. Regarding the imposition of surcharge on block assessment, the Court relied on Supreme Court decisions in CIT Vs. Suresh N. Gupta and CIT Vs. Rajiv Bhatara, upholding the Tribunal's view. Despite a subsequent Supreme Court reference in CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd., questioning the earlier decisions, the Court considered the previous rulings binding until the reference was answered. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on the imposition of surcharge, concluding the issue in favor of the Revenue.

4. In summary, the Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's modification of the discount rate but upholding the decision on the imposition of surcharge. The Court answered the formulated questions against the Revenue on the first three points and in favor of the Revenue on the fourth point, with no order as to costs in the circumstances.