2012 (12) TMI 319 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment in stock u/s 69 - survey - Held that - Survey was made by the department on 22.2.2007 and since the amount in difference of Rs. 2,17,148/- was surrendered by the assessee, therefore, the assessee was not expected to keep the furniture forever especially when the Valuer also did not visit on 8th March, 2007, therefore, there is all possibility that the furniture thereafter might have been sold by the assessee - In such a situation, the valuation cannot be done by the Valuer and that too he did not go to the premises of the assessee, as has been claimed. It is a case of survey and how long the assessee will wait & since the assessee has already surrendered the amount of difference (valuation made by the survey party and declaration of the assessee), which was accepted by the department at the time of survey, therefore, no further addition is warranted - in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained investment in stock u/s 69 of the Act.
2. Competence of the registered Valuer for valuation of stock.
3. Opportunity provided to the assessee for valuation.
4. Surrender of amount by the assessee.
5. Challenge to the valuation report by the assessee.
6. Assessment of excess stock and valuation discrepancies.
7. Justification of valuation made by the survey team.
8. Conclusion on the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 11,51,662, including Rs. 2,17,148 surrendered during survey, as unexplained investment in stock under section 69 of the Act. The appellant argued that the valuation made by the Valuer engaged by the department was unjustified and lacked opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

2. The competence of the registered Valuer for the valuation of stock was challenged by the appellant. It was contended that the Valuer was not entitled to value furniture stock and did not visit the premises on the appointed date. The appellant claimed that the addition based on such a valuation report was illegal and unwarranted.

3. The issue of providing adequate opportunity to the assessee for valuation was raised. The appellant highlighted that no opportunity was given for a hearing before the valuation was made, as claimed in a letter addressed to the ITO. The Valuer did not visit the premises as scheduled, casting doubt on the validity of the valuation.

4. The surrender of the amount in difference by the assessee was a crucial point. The appellant accepted the valuation of the survey team and surrendered the disputed amount. It was argued that since the assessee had already surrendered the amount accepted by the department during the survey, no further addition was justified.

5. The assessee challenged the valuation report at both stages and raised concerns about the competence of the Valuer. The Valuer's failure to visit the premises as scheduled and the lack of opportunity for the assessee to present their case were significant factors in disputing the valuation.

6. The assessment of excess stock and discrepancies in valuation were key aspects of the case. The valuation made by the registered Valuer was questioned, especially regarding the methodology used in the absence of adequate data and documentation from the assessee.

7. The justification of the valuation made by the survey team was a point of contention. The department defended the addition by arguing that the stock valuation was based on the survey conducted under section 133A, and the valuation by the registered Valuer was deemed justified.

8. In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, emphasizing the lack of proper opportunity for the assessee in the valuation process and the acceptance of the surrendered amount during the survey as sufficient resolution, warranting no further addition.

← Previous Next →