9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 25 - HC - Income TaxUndisclosed stock of gold & diamond jewellery - Whether ITAT was right in deleting the addition without considering that the assessee has not disclosed the aforesaid addition before the Settlement Commission as provided under section 245D(4) - ITAT deleted the addition added as undisclosed income for A.Y. 200203 on the strength of the seized document marked - Held that - No error has been committed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) nor by the ITAT in deleting both the aforesaid additions. Firstly on the ground that voluntarily disclosure made by Mr. P.P. Arya includes the aforesaid amount which is at ₹ 22,84,923/- and so far as addition of ₹ 41,51,301/- is concerned, it is submitted that the basic principles of accountancy have been properly appreciated by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT. There is no variance of stocks. Nonetheless, the closing stock was made as per cost price by the assessee and the said plea cannot be altered by the department. Since the assessee is valuing the closing stock on the basis of the cost price or market price whichever is lower and therefore, assessee has valued his stock at cost price which is also supported by the auditors report and therefore, this addition of ₹ 41,51,301/- has been rightly dealt by both the authorities under the Income Tax Act namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and ITAT. The documents which are exhibited A/JJ/6 contains the balance sheet, trading and profit and loss account, inventory of stock and valuation of stock for the period 01.04.2001 to 25.09.2001 showing net profit of the assessee at ₹ 41,81,301/- In fact, this is an error committed by Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that what is the basic principles of valuation of the closing stock. No illegality has been committed by both the authorities below and hence, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court. - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 22,84,923/- for undisclosed stock of gold and diamond jewellery. 2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 41,51,301/- for undisclosed income for A.Y. 2002-03 based on seized documents. 3. Application of Section 245D(4) and its implications on the additions. 4. Consideration of Section 132(4A) read with Section 158BB of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 22,84,923/- for Undisclosed Stock of Gold and Diamond Jewellery: The appellant argued that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,84,923/- without considering that the assessee did not disclose this amount before the Settlement Commission as required under Section 245D(4). This amount was added due to a discrepancy between the physical verification of the stock and its book value. The respondent countered that the voluntary disclosure made by Mr. P.P. Arya included this amount, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and ITAT correctly relied on the Settlement Commission's order, which accepted the true and full disclosure of income aggregating Rs. 81,18,770/-. 2. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 41,51,301/- for Undisclosed Income for A.Y. 2002-03 Based on Seized Documents: The appellant contended that the ITAT overlooked the seized document marked as A/JJ/6, which indicated undisclosed income of Rs. 41,51,301/-. The respondent argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and ITAT properly appreciated the basic principles of accountancy, noting that the closing stock was valued at cost price, which is permissible. The valuation method was supported by the auditor's report, and the addition was rightly deleted by both authorities. 3. Application of Section 245D(4) and Its Implications on the Additions: The appellant claimed that the ITAT did not properly appreciate that the addition of Rs. 22,84,923/- based on the difference in physical verification of stock was not disclosed before the Settlement Commission. The respondent relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ajmera Housing Corporation & Another Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which emphasized that the Settlement Commission's order, based on a true and full disclosure, is final and cannot be questioned. The Delhi High Court's decision in Sukhmani Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission also supported the finality of the Settlement Commission's order. 4. Consideration of Section 132(4A) Read with Section 158BB of the Income Tax Act: The appellant argued that the ITAT ignored the provisions of Section 132(4A) read with Section 158BB, which should have been considered in the deletion of the Rs. 41,51,301/- addition. The respondent maintained that the Assessing Officer failed to properly appreciate the accounting system and valuation of stock, which was done at cost price or market price, whichever was lower, as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank, Calcutta Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B.III, Calcutta. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, finding no error in the deletion of the additions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and ITAT. The Settlement Commission's order, based on a true and full disclosure, was upheld, and the principles of valuation of closing stock were correctly applied. The questions raised were not considered substantive questions of law but rather factual issues already addressed by the Settlement Commission's order.
|
