2018 (2) TMI 1598 - HC - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - difference in stock statement - Held that - There was no dispute that the addition had been made only on the ground of inflated statements furnished to the bank authorities for the purpose of availing larger credit facilities and was of the opinion that no addition can be made only on such basis. Tribunal further observed that it was an acceptable position in the commercial world that whenever cash credit facilities are availed by a businessman from the banks, to safeguard his cash credit limit, inflated stock statements are supplied to the banks for the purpose of fulfilling the margin requirements of the bank. Tribunal was of the view that no addition should be made on such count and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and allowed the cross objection filed by the assessee. Difference in stock statement was as regards the value of the stock and not the quantity thereof. Insofar as the value of the stock is concerned, as noted by the Tribunal, the value shown in the books of account was at cost or market price, whichever is lower and the value adopted for the stock statement supplied to the bank was at market price. Inflated statements came to be furnished to the bank authorities for the purpose of availing larger credit facilities, wherein the value of the stock was inflated. In the absence of any difference in stock in the statements furnished by the bank and in the books of account, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no addition could be made based upon the statement supplied to the bank.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding correctness and genuineness of books of accounts under section 145 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Allegation of inflating stock position for availing cash credit facilities.

Issue 1: Dispute regarding correctness and genuineness of books of accounts under section 145 of the Income Tax Act:
The case involves an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The dispute arose when the Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the value of closing stock shown by the assessee in the trading account for the year ended on 31.3.2008. The Assessing Officer alleged that the assessee had suppressed the value of closing stock, leading to an addition in the total income. The Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the addition, and the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal while allowing the assessee's cross objection. The Tribunal noted that the valuation of stock for bank statements differs from that in books of accounts, and no addition can be made solely based on inflated statements for credit facilities. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that inflated stock statements for credit facilities are common in the commercial world and do not warrant additional income tax assessments.

Issue 2: Allegation of inflating stock position for availing cash credit facilities:
The Tribunal observed that the discrepancy in stock valuation was related to the value, not the quantity, of stock. It was noted that the value in the books of account was at cost or market price, whichever is lower, while the value for bank statements was at market price. The Tribunal held that no addition could be justified based on inflated stock statements for credit purposes. The Tribunal's decision was supported by a previous judgment of the High Court, which further strengthened the position that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the appeal was summarily dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of disputing the correctness of books of accounts and the allegation of inflating stock for credit facilities. The Tribunal's decision, based on commercial practices and legal precedents, upheld that discrepancies in stock valuation for credit purposes do not warrant additional tax assessments. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between stock valuation for internal records and external credit requirements, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.