9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1662 - AT - Income TaxAddition of undisclosed stock - HELD THAT - Admittedly the assessee engaged itself in the business of export of cotton garments fabrics etc. The assessee filed the details of purchase invoices and the lorry details by which the same was transported. Export of goods is not in dispute. AO doubts the purchase alone. When the export is not in dispute this Tribunal is of the considered opinion the assessee could not have exported the goods without any purchase. Now coming to the contention of the Ld.DR that the assessee had furnished additional material and therefore there is violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules a mere perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that no additional material was filed. CIT(A) simply referred to the documents filed before the AO and observed that the documents submitted clearly proves goods under dispute has been received by the assessee and exported. It does not spoke anything about the additional material. The details of invoice and the details of transport by lorry are available before the AO as well as Ld.CIT(A). Having furnished the details of the purchase invoice and the details of lorry before the Assessing Officer this Tribunal is of the considered opinion the assessee has discharged its onus. Therefore the burden of proof shifts on the shoulders of the Revenue. The material available on record clearly establishes that there was purchase and export. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO. - Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues involved:
Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai for assessment year 2006-07 - Addition of undisclosed stock to total income - Violation of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules - Burden of proof on Revenue. Analysis: 1. Addition of Undisclosed Stock: The appeal pertains to the addition of 29,23,233 Pcs of undisclosed stock to the total income for the assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer initially made this addition, which was contested by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) found that the addition was not warranted after examining the documents related to the goods under dispute, which were received and exported by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the export of goods was not in dispute, and since the assessee had filed details of purchase invoices and transportation, it was deemed that the goods could not have been exported without purchase. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) to delete the addition. 2. Violation of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules: The Ld.DR argued that there was a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules due to the alleged furnishing of additional material by the assessee. However, upon review, it was found that no additional material was filed before the Ld.CIT(A). The documents submitted to the Assessing Officer were also presented to the Ld.CIT(A), demonstrating that the goods in question were received and exported by the assessee. As the details of the purchase invoice and transportation were already available with the authorities, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had fulfilled its burden of proof, shifting the onus to the Revenue. The material on record established the purchase and export, leading to the deletion of the addition by the Ld.CIT(A), which was upheld by the Tribunal. 3. Burden of Proof on Revenue: The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof shifted to the Revenue once the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the purchase and export of goods. As the material on record clearly established these transactions, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition to the total income. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, confirming the order of the Ld.CIT(A). In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) to delete the addition of undisclosed stock to the total income for the assessment year 2006-07, emphasizing that the assessee had fulfilled its burden of proof regarding the purchase and export of goods, thereby shifting the onus to the Revenue, which failed to provide contrary evidence.
|
