2016 (10) TMI 965 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of Books of Account - GP addition - Held that - Assessee s Books of Account were rejected for valid reasons. In fact in the course of survey, AO did not verify all the vouchers and Books of Account and arrived excess stock as quantified in the survey at ₹ 47,05,008/-, for which assessee admitted that inventory was taken correctly. The Managing Partner in fact admitted additional income of ₹ 30 Lakhs in the course of survey. Keeping that in mind and also noticing that assessee has offered only an income of ₹ 6,467/- in the return of income, there is reasonable cause for rejection of Books of Account and estimating the gross profit. Coming to the issue of excess stock also, Ld. CIT(A) has examined the contentions viz-a-viz., various sale bills and tag prices and has reasonably estimated the reduction to be about 30%, which is reasonable on the given facts. In view of this, to the extent of estimation of gross profit and estimation of stock on the day of survey, I agree with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). However, find that there cannot be two additions on the same issue. Therefore, the addition made viz-a-viz the gross profit can be telescoped to the addition which was made on excess stock. Accordingly, AO is directed to telescope the income added as gross profit addition to the excess stock determined after the order of CIT(A). Thus, assessee gets partial relief. Grounds are accordingly allowed partially.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Books of Account and Estimation of Gross Profit
2. Difference in Closing Stock
3. Discounts Allowed on Tag Prices
4. Addition on Account of Difference in Stocks

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Books of Account and Estimation of Gross Profit:
The Assessee contested the rejection of its Books of Account and the estimation of gross profit at 10.41% by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO completed the scrutiny assessment by rejecting the Books of Account and estimating the gross profit at 10.41%, leading to an additional tax of ?2,00,092/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, confirming the addition. The Tribunal, after reviewing the circumstances, agreed with the rejection of the Books of Account, citing valid reasons such as the Assessee's admission of additional income during the survey and the minimal income declared in the return.

2. Difference in Closing Stock:
The AO found an excess stock amounting to ?47,05,008/- during a survey conducted under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee argued that the stock inventory was based on inflated tag prices, not reflecting the actual cost. The CIT(A) acknowledged the Assessee's contention that there was a significant gap between the tag prices and the actual sale prices due to discounts, but reduced the variation to 30% instead of the claimed 55%. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s assessment, finding the 30% reduction reasonable based on the evidence provided.

3. Discounts Allowed on Tag Prices:
The Assessee claimed that discounts allowed to customers were not considered by the AO when quantifying the physical stock. The CIT(A) analyzed the sales data and found that the discounts varied significantly across different categories of sarees, ranging from 3.50% to 49.47%. The CIT(A) determined that an average discount of 30% was more reasonable than the 55% claimed by the Assessee. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s detailed analysis and findings.

4. Addition on Account of Difference in Stocks:
The Assessee argued that no addition should be made for the difference in stocks as the AO did not correctly value the cost of the stocks on the survey date. The CIT(A) partially accepted this argument by allowing a 30% reduction in the stock value based on discounts. The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A)'s estimation was reasonable, there should not be two separate additions for the same issue. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to telescope the gross profit addition of ?2,00,092/- into the excess stock addition, providing partial relief to the Assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the Assessee's appeal, affirming the rejection of the Books of Account and the 30% reduction in stock value but directed the AO to combine the additions for gross profit and excess stock to avoid double taxation. The order was pronounced in open court on 14th September 2016.