2015 (6) TMI 1232 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment (in terms of excess stock of jewellery) - determination of the excess stock - whether the Learned CIT(Appeals) was justified in computing the undisclosed stock in the manner stated in its order? - HELD THAT - The methodology adopted by the Learned CIT(Appeals) is correct for determining the value of the undisclosed stock and the computation done by the Assessing Officer to determine the value of undisclosed stock is not correct one. For the purpose of making addition on account of undisclosed stock, first the quantity/weight of such undisclosed stock has to be determined and then market value of this undisclosed stock is to be added as income. Accordingly, ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue is rejected. Valuation done by the approved valuer as on the date of search - HELD THAT - On going through this letter and also the discrepancy pointed out by the Learned AR in the two valuations, there appears to be some differences in the valuation carried out on the date of search. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has considered this issue and has held that the departmental valuer had properly considered the quantity, rate of gold jewellery and other precious stones at the time of the search operation and valued it accordingly. On the basis of these findings, he has rejected the contention of the assessee regarding the defects in the valuation. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that this valuation was done on the date of search, when stock was physically examined, we do not see any reason to deviate with the findings given by the Learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue. In result, ground Nos. 3 and 4 of the assessee's appeal are rejected. Offering Undisclosed income for taxation - HELD THAT - CIT(Appeals) was not correct in not giving credit of the jewellery acquired out of the income offered by Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal and we thus direct the Assessing Officer to allow credit of the jewellery to the extent of 18,548.448 grams contributed by its director Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal while computing the valuation of the undisclosed stock as on the date of the search.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of jurisdiction acquired by the Assessing Officer under section 153A.
2. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment in excess stock of jewellery.
3. Valuation of undisclosed stock as on the date of search.
4. Rejection of the valuation report of the independent registered valuer.
5. Contribution of jewellery by the director sourced from his undisclosed income.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Jurisdiction Acquired by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A:
The assessee argued that the order passed by the A.O. under section 153A was without jurisdiction due to the lack of specific authorization under section 132. However, this ground was not pressed by the Learned AR during the hearing and was consequently rejected.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment in Excess Stock of Jewellery:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,12,88,397 on account of unexplained investment without appreciating the issue raised in the remand report of the A.O. The Assessing Officer had computed the value of unexplained stock at Rs. 4,78,14,866 based on the valuation of stock found during the search. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention that the A.O. incorrectly valued the entire stock at market value and then deducted the stock as on 01.04.2005 at book value. The CIT(A) recalculated the difference in the quantity of gold ornaments and valued the same at Rs. 3,31,00,417, providing partial relief to the assessee.

3. Valuation of Undisclosed Stock as on the Date of Search:
The assessee argued that the valuation done by the valuer on the date of search was incorrect and pointed out several anomalies. The CIT(A) held that the departmental valuer had properly considered the quantity and rate of gold jewellery and other precious stones during the search. The tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, rejecting the assessee's contention regarding valuation defects.

4. Rejection of the Valuation Report of the Independent Registered Valuer:
The CIT(A) rejected the valuation report submitted by the independent registered valuer, which valued the stock-in-trade at Rs. 11,72,88,275. The tribunal upheld this rejection, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the departmental valuer's assessment was more reliable.

5. Contribution of Jewellery by the Director Sourced from His Undisclosed Income:
The assessee claimed that 18,548.448 grams of gold ornaments were contributed by its director, sourced from his additional income offered for taxation. The CIT(A) did not allow this deduction, citing a lack of concrete evidence. However, the tribunal found this explanation plausible, supported by an affidavit from the director and subsequent acceptance by the A.O. in the assessment year 2008-09. The tribunal directed the A.O. to allow credit for the jewellery contributed by the director while computing the valuation of the undisclosed stock.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s methodology for determining the value of undisclosed stock, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It partially allowed the assessee's appeal by directing the A.O. to credit the jewellery contributed by the director. The final order resulted in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and partial allowance of the assessee's appeal.