2009 (10) TMI 15 - HC - Income Tax

Declaration of higher stock before bank - AO has obtained a statement from the bank under Section 133 (6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The information, which has been obtained from the bank is with regard to the stocks available with the assessee on different dates. - Accordinlgy closing stock of the appellant on an average basis for the assessment year under consideration is Rs.9,75,775/-, instead of Rs.3,48,559/- and accordingly enhanced the taxable income Held that - no foundation has been laid down for enhancement of stock except that it was taken on an average of the stock furnished by the assessee to the Bank - The necessary information was obtained from the Bank under Section 133 (6) of the Income-tax Act. Further, no cogent reason has been assigned by the Assessing Authority as to why he has taken average of the stock instead of relying on the closing stock as disclosed in the accounts books on 31.3.2002 matter remanded for fresh consideration

Issues:
1. Burden of proof on Revenue in tax assessment.
2. Addition of undisclosed closing stock.
3. Rejection of one part of a transaction by tax authorities.
4. Method of determining closing stock as per commercial accounting practices.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Burden of proof on Revenue in tax assessment
The appellant contested the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the income sought to be taxed is within the taxing provisions. The appellant cited the case of Parimisetti Settharamamma v. CIT to support this argument. The Tribunal's confirmation of the order of CIT (Appeal) was challenged based on the settled principle of law regarding the burden of proof in tax assessments.

Issue 2: Addition of undisclosed closing stock
The appellant raised concerns over the addition of Rs.4,99,936 as 'undisclosed closing stock' by the Assessing Authority. The appellant argued that the physical presence of the stock was neither certified nor established by the bank, and the whole addition was upheld based on the cash credit hypothecation statement of stock. The Tribunal's decision to confirm this addition was questioned by the appellant, highlighting discrepancies in the assessment process regarding the valuation of stock hypothecated to the bank.

Issue 3: Rejection of one part of a transaction
The appellant criticized the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for confirming the order of CIT (Appeal) despite the settled law that tax authorities cannot reject one part of a transaction after relying on another part. The appellant argued that the tax authorities should have considered the entire transaction holistically without selectively accepting or rejecting parts of it.

Issue 4: Method of determining closing stock
The appellant contended that the method applied by the Assessing Authority in determining the closing stock was not in accordance with commercial accounting practices. The appellant emphasized that the difference between the stock value in the books of account and the value disclosed to the bank should not have been treated as deemed income without proper evidence. The assessment order was criticized for lacking a cogent reason for taking an average stock value instead of relying on the closing stock as per the account books.

In conclusion, the High Court quashed the orders passed by the Tribunal and CIT (Appeal) and remanded the matter to the CIT (A) for a fresh decision within three months. The Court found errors in the assessment process, including the lack of evidence supporting the enhancement of closing stock and deviations from established legal principles and accounting practices. The appeal was allowed based on the identified issues and discrepancies in the tax assessment process.

← Previous Next →