2018 (3) TMI 372 - AT - Income Tax

GP estimation - rejection of books of accounts - undervaluation of stock - Held that - There is no dispute with regard to the proposition that the assessee would be required to value closing stock either at cost or at market price whichever is lower. The assessee did not adopt cost price. The assessee has adopted sale which could be realized out of the stock. But what was guiding factor to adopt rates. The ld.CIT(A) has observed that during the period when valuation was done rates of these items were quite different in the market. The ld.CIT(A) made reference to those rates in the finding extracted supra, and thereafter held that stock was undervalued by a sum of ₹ 98,10,499/-. We do not find any error in this finding of the ld.CIT(A). More so, it is a revenue neutral issue because whatever addition is being made in the closing stock, it will be opening stock in the next year. If the assessee would fail to realize the value in proportion with the valuation of closing stock, she will claim loss in the next year, and if she acquired higher rate, then profit will be made. Therefore, no interference is called for in the finding of the ld.CIT(A). Disallowance of foreign tour expenses - Held that - CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding that expenditure on foreign travel of assessee s son was not for the purpose of business, hence, it could not be allowed. Before us, the assessee failed to demonstrate business expediency with regard to this expenditure, and how Shri Kenny Thomas and his family have fulfilled objects of business carried out by the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the ld.CIT(A).

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of books of accounts by the Assessing Officer (AO).
2. Estimation of income by the AO.
3. Valuation of closing stock.
4. Disallowance of foreign tour expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Books of Accounts by the AO:
The AO rejected the books of accounts on the grounds that the assessee valued the closing stock at realizable value instead of cost or market price, made purchases from unregistered dealers, showed a lower yield compared to previous years, and had higher electricity consumption. The CIT(A) found that the fall in gross profit and net profit alone cannot be a reason to reject the books unless specific instances of bogus purchases or unrecorded sales are detected. The CIT(A) also noted that the DEPB gains were factored into the selling price, which is a normal business practice. Furthermore, the CIT(A) observed that the yield percentages were within acceptable ranges and that the electricity consumption was justified given the nature of the assessee's business. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that specific defects were not pointed out by the AO, and thus, the rejection of books was not warranted.

2. Estimation of Income by the AO:
The AO estimated the income of the assessee based on the perceived discrepancies in the books of accounts. However, the CIT(A) found that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to support the rejection of the books. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the AO failed to point out specific defects or provide evidence of bogus purchases or expenses. The Tribunal concluded that the estimation of income by the AO was not justified and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the AO.

3. Valuation of Closing Stock:
The assessee valued the closing stock at realizable value, which was lower than the market price. The CIT(A) held that the assessee should have valued the stock at market price or cost, whichever is lower, and confirmed the addition of ?98,10,499/- on account of undervaluation of stock. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee did not provide a guiding factor for the rates adopted for valuation. The Tribunal also observed that this issue is revenue-neutral as the closing stock of one year becomes the opening stock of the next year.

4. Disallowance of Foreign Tour Expenses:
The AO disallowed foreign tour expenses amounting to ?6,29,855/- incurred for the assessee's son and his family, considering it a personal expense. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, stating that the expenditure was not for business purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee failed to demonstrate the business expediency of the expenditure.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The Tribunal found that the rejection of books of accounts and the estimation of income by the AO were not justified, confirmed the addition on account of undervaluation of closing stock, and upheld the disallowance of foreign tour expenses.