2013 (7) TMI 322 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of books accounts u/s 145 - difference in stock statement submitted to bank - Tribunal held that books of accounts cannot be rejected on the basis of discrepancies and defects found in the valuation of stock - Held that - additions were made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has not properly disclosed the closing stock of the raw material. There is discrepancies with regard to the closing stock of raw material in between the statement furnished before the bank and as shown in the account-books - there is evidence on record to show that the closing stock in the bank statement disclosed by the assessee is incorrect but the account books are properly maintained - Decided against the revenue.

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Discrepancies in valuation of stock and cost of production.
3. Correctness of the assessee's valuation of stock.
4. Estimation of profit by the Assessing Officer.
5. Acceptance of account-books of the assessee.

Issue 1:
The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2003-04. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the rejection of books of accounts based on discrepancies and defects in stock valuation, and whether profit estimation by the Assessing Officer was justified.

Issue 2:
The Assessing Officer made additions due to discrepancies in the closing stock of raw material between the bank statement and the account-books of the assessee. The First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal examined the issue in detail. The Tribunal found that the assessee maintained regular books of account without discrepancies, valuing finished goods at market value and raw material on a cost basis. The Tribunal concluded that the consistent method adopted by the assessee should be accepted, and no other discrepancies were found in the books of account.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal's finding on the valuation of stock and the method employed by the assessee was considered a factual determination. The Tribunal distinguished the decision of the Karnataka High Court in a similar case, emphasizing that in the present case, the evidence showed that the closing stock in the bank statement disclosed by the assessee was incorrect, and the account books were properly maintained.

Issue 4:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal was unjustified in rejecting the appeal and accepting the account-books of the assessee. The appellant relied on a decision of the Karnataka High Court, while the respondent supported the Tribunal's order. After considering the submissions and perusing the record, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it summarily.

Issue 5:
The Court noted that the Tribunal's finding on the maintenance of account-books and the valuation methods employed by the assessee was a factual determination. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the consistent method of valuation adopted by the assessee should be accepted, and no significant discrepancies were found in the books of account.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised in the appeal, the findings of the Tribunal, and the Court's decision to dismiss the appeal based on the factual determinations and the consistency in the valuation methods employed by the assessee.

← Previous Next →