2016 (2) TMI 384 - HC - Income Tax

Addition made towards difference in closing stock - assessment by Sales Tax Authorities - whether the stock statement submitted to the Sales Tax authorities was erroneous? - Held that - As decided in The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Smt. Sakuntala Devi Khetan 2013 (3) TMI 270 - MADRAS HIGH COURT it has been held that the Assessing Officer has to adopt the figures and turn over finally assessed by the Sales Tax Authorities. This decision is binding upon the Revenue. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue that it has powers to tinker with the stock estimated by the Sales Tax Authorities cannot be accepted. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in stock valuation between bank declaration and books maintained by the Assessee.
2. Applicability of stock valuation accepted by Sales Tax Authorities to Income Tax Authorities.

Issue 1: Discrepancy in stock valuation
The Assessing Officer noted a significant difference in the declared stock value before the bank for cash credit facility and the stock value in the Assessee's books, resulting in an addition to the Assessee's income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) initially allowed the Assessee's appeal, but the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. Despite the lack of evidence supporting the discrepancy, the Assessing Officer upheld the addition based on the declared stock value submitted by the Assessee.

Issue 2: Applicability of stock valuation accepted by Sales Tax Authorities
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Assessee, stating that the stock declaration accepted by Sales Tax Authorities should bind the Income Tax Authorities. The Assessee argued that the stock valuation confirmed by the Commercial Tax Department and Sales Tax Authorities should be upheld by the Income Tax Department. The Assessee relied on a previous decision where it was held that the Assessing Officer must adopt the figures assessed by Sales Tax Authorities, indicating that the Income Tax Authorities are bound by such valuations.

The Court emphasized that cases should be decided based on legal principles rather than personal moral views, citing relevant legal precedents. It was highlighted that the burden lies on the Revenue to prove the inaccuracy of stock statements submitted to authorities. The Court also discussed the differing interests of Bank Authorities and Sales Tax Authorities in verifying stock, concluding that the valuation accepted by Sales Tax Authorities should carry more weight due to their professional expertise in tax collection.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to uphold the deletion of the addition made towards the difference in closing stock valuation. The Court reiterated the importance of respecting the valuations accepted by Sales Tax Authorities and upheld the decision in favor of the Assessee based on legal principles and precedents.