2018 (3) TMI 1651 - AT - Income Tax

Additions on the basis of stock statement submitted to Bank - no difference found in the physical stock and the book stock on the date of survey. - It was explained that due to the change in accounting software, the shortage entry of preceding years was not picked up resulting overstatement of stock as per books of accounts. It was explained that the closing stock as per the books of accounts is carried forward from preceding years without booking of the shortage of earlier years and also. Held that - The difference found in the such statements and the books of accounts cannot be added. The Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the judgments referred to hereinabove have taken a consistent view that were Assessing Officer made addition to income of assessee on plea that there was difference in quantity and value of stock shown in books of accounts vis- -vis as shown to bank, impugned addition are not justified. The Hon ble High Court has further stated that where inflated statement was furnished to banking authorities for availing of higher credit, difference of stock shown in books of accounts and in statement furnished to banking authorities could not be treated as undisclosed investment. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition due to discrepancy in stock found during survey.
2. Addition due to discrepancy in purchase and sales figures.
3. Addition due to noting in the diary found during survey.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition due to discrepancy in stock found during survey:

The primary issue in the Assessee's appeal (ITA No. 2573/Ahd/2013) and the Revenue's appeal (ITA No. 2623/Ahd/2013) pertains to the addition of ?1,59,22,356/- due to stock discrepancy found during a survey on 11/12.09.2008. The survey revealed discrepancies between the stock statements submitted to Punjab National Bank and the stock as per the books. The Assessee explained that the discrepancy arose due to a change in accounting software and unrecorded shortages from previous years. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) made the addition citing unaccounted purchases and sales. The CIT(A) partially accepted the Assessee's explanation, reducing the addition to ?19,46,757/-. Upon appeal, it was noted that no physical stock discrepancy was found during the survey, and the stock statements to the bank were inflated to maintain credit limits. The Tribunal, referencing judgments from the Gujarat High Court, directed the A.O. to delete the entire addition of ?1,59,22,356/- as the difference in stock statements could not be treated as undisclosed investment. Consequently, ground nos. 1 to 4 of the Assessee's appeal were allowed, and ground no. 1 of the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

2. Addition due to discrepancy in purchase and sales figures:

The second issue in the Revenue's appeal concerns the deletion of an addition of ?7,48,27,432/-. The A.O. noted discrepancies between the purchase and sales figures as per the books and those on the letterhead of Janam Steel & Alloys, attributing the difference to unaccounted transactions. The Assessee explained that the discrepancies were due to errors in accounting software, which incorrectly summarized sundry creditors and debtors as purchases and sales. The CIT(A) verified the Assessee's explanation and found that the entries on the letterhead pertained to creditors and debtors, not purchases and sales. The A.O.'s remand report confirmed the tally of credit balances with creditors. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, as the explanation was consistent and supported by documentary evidence. Thus, ground no. 2 of the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

3. Addition due to noting in the diary found during survey:

The final issue relates to the addition of ?44,26,995/- based on notings in a diary found during the survey. The Assessee contended that the diary belonged to Shri Rajubhai Patel, a broker, and not to the Assessee. During remand proceedings, Shri Patel confirmed ownership of the diary and explained the transactions noted therein, which were unrelated to the Assessee. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation and deleted the addition. The Tribunal, considering the consistent statements and documentary evidence provided by Shri Patel, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. Consequently, ground no. 3 of the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion:

The Assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the major addition due to stock discrepancy being deleted, while the minor addition of ?7,218/- due to cash discrepancy was dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed in its entirety, with all contested additions being deleted based on the evidence and explanations provided. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 23-03-2018.