2012 (11) TMI 227 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted income - excess stock - surrender of income of 14 lacs however retracted the same during assessment proceedings - Held that - Assessee has claimed that the total stock found at the time of survey was Rs. 38,33,000/-. Against this figure the value of closing stock computing as per the trading account at the time of survey was amounting to Rs. 24,35,000/-. Remaining amount of Rs. 14 lacs was surrendered. Statement of account for the period 12.12.98 to 31.3.1999 was prepared by taking the opening stock Rs. 38,35,000/- and according to this statement assessee suffered a gross loss of Rs. 3,85,193/-. As per the assessee he has earned gross profit for the period 1.4.98 to 11.12.98 amounting to Rs. 1875712/- Assessee has further suffered gross loss for the period 12.12.98 to 31.3.1999 amounting to Rs. 385193/-. As a result of the above, the gross profit during the entire period came to Rs. 1490519/-. This aspect of the assessee, suffering of loss during a part of the financial year has not been discussed and examined by the authorities below. Therefore, matter is remitted to the file of the AO - Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the reply by the assessee in the statement leading to the addition of Rs. 14,00,000 as unaccounted income.

Analysis:
The case involved a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act where an excess stock of Rs. 14 lacs was found, prompting the assessee to surrender this amount as unaccounted income. However, during assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the excess stock declared was only 2456 Kg valued at Rs. 85,960, and thus, the surrender amount should be restricted to this lower figure. The Assessing Officer disagreed and added back the entire Rs. 14 lacs to the assessee's income.

Upon appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that the assessee had surrendered Rs. 14 lacs in response to a specific question during the survey, where the stock difference was highlighted. The Commissioner observed that the surrendered amount was based on the total excess stock found at various locations, not just the stock from one location as claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner rejected the assessee's contention and confirmed the addition of Rs. 14 lacs to the income.

The assessee argued that the determination of the Rs. 14 lacs surrender amount was based on detailed explanations and calculations, including the comparison of stock registers and gross profits. The assessee maintained that the surrendered amount was accurately reflected in the audited accounts.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and records, noting the assessee's explanations regarding the stock valuation and gross profits during the survey period. However, the Tribunal found that the authorities below had not adequately addressed the assessee's claim of suffering a loss in the subsequent period post-survey. To ensure justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the accounts and submissions provided by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a re-examination by the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's claims and the aspect of loss incurred post-survey for a comprehensive decision.