2012 (11) TMI 223 - AT - Income Tax

Discrepancy and Duplication in the stock at time of survey and the closing stock as recorded in the books of accounts - Held that - except stating that the valuation of stock is arbitrary, the assessee has not produced any evidence to substantiate its claim. - As valuation has been done in the premises of the assessee with the assistance of the staff of the assessee and the assessee has never raised any objections about the valuation till the assessment stage - difference in the valuation is not properly explained by the assessee no infirmity in order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition on account of excess stock made but however gave relief to the extent of Rs.11,48,950/- on account of duplication of the stock at pages 5 and 8 of the inventory of stock made at the time of survey - In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding excess stock valuation discrepancy.

Analysis:
The case involved cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order regarding the valuation discrepancy of excess stock found during a survey. The assessee, a partnership firm in the business of exporting silk fabrics, declared a total income of Rs. 53,90,091 for the relevant assessment year. A survey revealed a stock valuation difference, leading to an addition of Rs. 30,99,685 by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition but granted relief of Rs. 11,48,950 for duplication of stock. The assessee challenged the addition, arguing that the valuation was arbitrary and based on surmises, while the Revenue contended that the stock valuation was systematic and done with assistance from the assessee's staff. The Managing Partner's clarification on the stock valuation was considered, and discrepancies in stock valuation sheets were analyzed.

The main issue revolved around the discrepancy in stock valuation between the survey findings and the assessee's books. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to explain the discrepancy, while the assessee claimed it was due to arbitrary valuation methods and duplication of stock in certain inventory pages. The Managing Partner's statement and the matching details on the inventory sheets were crucial in determining the accuracy of stock valuation. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the valuation discrepancy on one inventory page but upheld the addition for the remaining stock valuation difference. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence from the assessee to substantiate the claim of arbitrary valuation, emphasizing that the valuation was done on the premises with the assistance of the assessee's staff.

In conclusion, both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal. The decision upheld the addition to the assessee's income for the excess stock valuation difference, except for the relief granted for duplication of stock on specific inventory pages. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the explanations provided by the parties, the Managing Partner's statements, and the lack of evidence supporting the assessee's claim of arbitrary valuation.