2017 (3) TMI 818 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed sales on account of difference in closing stock of previous year and opening stock of current year - Held that - During remand proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 23/12/2014, submitted the details like copy of ledger of cocoa powder GP-250 and GP-100 for Financial Year 2008- 09 and 2009-10 along with copy of purchase and sales invoices of cocoa powder GP-100 for Assessment Year 2008- 09 and 2009-10 along with the relevant pages of register maintained in form RG-23D under Rule 52AA maintained as purchase and sale register for Central Excise Department and the copy of the audit report from the office of Central Excise. On perusal of this details, the same were found tallying as per the claim of the assessee regarding the sales made during the Financial Year 2009-10 as submitted the during the assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2010-11. In reply to the remand report, the assessee again took the plea that the item wise closing stock was wrongly submitted during assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2009-10 and the correct itemwise closing stock is as per the opening stock submitted during assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2010-11 and the purchases of GP-100 were sold in Financial Year 2008-09 itself. We find that, value wise closing stock as on 31/03/2009 was similar to opening stock of 01/04/2009 and it was merely a error, which either inadvertently occurred due to non-updation of the software. Otherwise, valuewise, there is no difference, therefore, this ground of the assessee is allowed. Commission paid to husband of the assessee - Held that - The commission was paid out of business expediency and further was made through banking channel. The statement of husband was recorded who confirmed of getting the commission. The husband of the assessee duly declared the commission in his return and paid taxes thereon, thus, there is no loss to the Revenue. Even the Ld. Assessing Officer has not denied the factum of payment of commission. It was merely a business transaction, thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed. Identical is the situation in the case of payment of commission amounting to ₹ 5,25,000/- to Mr. Nagesh Hatim, employee of the assessee. The amount was paid through banking channel and even during recording of statement, Mr. Hatim accepted that he received the commission. The payment of commission was for business expediency, thus, the payment of commission to the employee is also found to be genuine - Decided in favour of assessee Reopening of assessment - non furnishing reasons to believe - Held that - As decided in CIT vs Trend Electronics 2015 (9) TMI 1119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT assessee had sought for reasons for reopening notice from the Assessing Officer but reasons were not furnished to the assessee before the completion of the reassessment proceedings then the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. Uncontrovertedly, in spite of asking by the assessee, as mentioned earlier, no reasons were supplied to the assessee for reopening the assessee, thus, the reassessment proceedings are held to be bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues:
1. Addition of undisclosed sales due to stock discrepancy.
2. Commission payments to related parties.
3. Legality of assessment reopening without providing reasons.

Issue 1: Addition of undisclosed sales due to stock discrepancy

The assessee appealed against the addition of ?7,98,205 as undisclosed sales due to a difference in closing stock of the previous year and the opening stock of the current year. The Assessing Officer made the addition based on discrepancies in the quantity of stock, which the assessee attributed to a mistake in the Tally Software not being updated. The Tribunal found that the stock details provided by the assessee matched with excise records, and the discrepancy was a result of a quantity error. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, noting that there was no difference in value, and the discrepancy was due to a software error.

Issue 2: Commission payments to related parties

The assessee contested the addition of commission payments totaling ?5,85,500 and ?5,25,000 to the husband of the assessee and an employee, respectively. The assessee claimed that the payments were made for business expediency and were disclosed in the return of income. The Tribunal found that the payments were genuine, made through banking channels, and for business purposes. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that there was no loss to the revenue, and the commission payments were legitimate business transactions.

Issue 3: Legality of assessment reopening without providing reasons

The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09, citing that the Assessing Officer did not provide reasons despite requests. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested reasons for reopening, but they were not supplied before the completion of reassessment proceedings. Citing legal precedents, including the decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, the Tribunal held that failure to provide reasons for reopening rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, concluding that the reassessment proceedings were legally flawed.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee on all issues. The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the addition of undisclosed sales, commission payments, and the legality of assessment reopening without providing reasons. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of strict compliance with legal requirements in assessment proceedings and upheld the assessee's contentions based on the evidence and legal principles presented during the hearings.

← Previous Next →