2012 (8) TMI 89 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of suppression in valuation of closing stock - Held that - As Tax Audit Report clearly demonstrate that the assessee was valuing the closing stock by FIFO method which was accepted in assessment order for assessment year 2007-08 by the AO no merit in the action of AO for valuing closing stock as per average rate of purchases - restore this ground to the file of AO for detailed calculation of stock as per FIFO method. Disallowance of warehouse charges - invoking provisions of Section 80IB(13)and Section 40A(2) - Held that - No merit in the action of the AO for making disallowance on the plea that sister concern of the assessee is availing exemption u/s 80IB - that neither AO has brought any material on record to say that fair market value of warehousing charges paid was lower nor the assessee has placed on record the operative rate of cotton charges prevailing in the market - restore this ground to the file of AO for reconsider the issue with reference to the provisions of Section 40A(2B) Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) - Held that - AO has given detailed calculation of payment made to the sister concern on account of purchases made with reference to the market rate prevailing on the date of purchase and nothing was brought on record to dislodge the finding of AO - confirm the disallowance made on account of purchase made from sister concern under provisions of Section 40(a)(ii)(b) - against assessee. Reworking of assessee s claim of depreciation - Held that - As this ground was not before the AO therefore in the interest of justice this ground is restored back to the file of AO to recalculate depreciation allowable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of closing stock using FIFO method
2. Disallowance of warehouse charges under Sections 80IB(13) and 40A(2)
3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ii)(b) for purchases from a sister concern
4. Additional ground for reworking depreciation claim

Valuation of Closing Stock using FIFO Method:
The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 24,63,157 on the grounds of alleged suppression in the valuation of closing stock. The Assessing Officer had observed that the closing stock value for wheat and coal was understated compared to the average purchase price during the year. The appellant argued that they consistently valued closing stock using the FIFO method, while the Assessing Officer applied the average rate of purchase, leading to the addition. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the Tax Audit Report and past assessment orders supported the consistent use of FIFO method. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the detailed FIFO method calculation provided by the appellant for a fair assessment.

Disallowance of Warehouse Charges under Sections 80IB(13) and 40A(2):
The Assessing Officer disallowed warehouse charges, citing that payments to a sister concern enjoying exemption under Section 80IB warranted disallowance in the appellant's hands. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that any excess payment should be disallowed only if it exceeds fair market value, under Section 40A(3). Noting the lack of evidence on fair market value, the Tribunal set aside the Assessing Officer's order and directed a reconsideration under Section 40A(2B), emphasizing that any disallowance should be based on comparison with fair market value.

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ii)(b) for Purchases from Sister Concern:
The Assessing Officer disallowed purchases made from a sister concern under Section 40(a)(ii)(b), based on detailed calculations of payments made compared to prevailing market rates. The Tribunal upheld this disallowance, finding no evidence to challenge the Assessing Officer's findings regarding the purchases from the sister concern.

Additional Ground for Reworking Depreciation Claim:
The appellant raised an additional ground for reworking the depreciation claim due to a disallowance in the previous assessment year. As this ground was not presented before the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal restored it for reconsideration, directing the Assessing Officer to recalculate the depreciation claim in accordance with the Income Tax Rules and relevant provisions of the Act.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in part for statistical purposes, with specific directions provided for each issue raised by the appellant regarding the valuation of closing stock, disallowance of warehouse charges, purchases from a sister concern, and the reworking of the depreciation claim.