2019 (12) TMI 369 - AT - Income Tax

Deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer - deletion made on the ground that assessee s firm is into the manufacturing of chemicals which is not been mentioned by assessee in his book of account but is part of audit report - typographical error in audit report - rejection of Books of Accounts u/s 145(3) - audit under section 44AB of the Act - HELD THAT - While uploading the report in Form 3CB/3CD, there was typographical error due to switching between two different clients , screens simultaneously, as a result the data of the other client was cut and passed in Clause 10(a) and 11 and corresponding clauses 35bA and 35bB in the assessee s report - The above typographical error was explained to the AO vide letter dated 20.12.2017 along with other proof that the dealer is not a manufacturer having stock of raw materials and finished goods. The books of accounts and final accounts did not show any manufacturing account. No manufacturing expenses such as wages, processing charges were claimed by the assessee - The accounts did not show any factory nor any depreciation on any factory, the items stated in Clauses 35(bA) and 35(bB) were not borne out by any purchase or sales invoices. The AO has rejected Books of Accounts Under section 145(3) on the doubt that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing of chemicals which activity was not disclosed by the assessee. It is apparent that the assessee is able to explain that there was typographical error due to switching between two different clients screens simultaneously and as a result, the data of the other client was cut and pasted in clause 10(a) and 11 and corresponding clauses 35(bA) and 35(bB) in form No. 3CB and CD of the assessee s report. Hence, there is no manufacturing and it is only dealing in the business of trading of acids and chemicals. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and this issue of Revenue s appeal is dismissed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of addition made by AO regarding manufacturing stock disclosure in audit report.

Analysis:
1. The appeal arises from the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO regarding the disclosure of manufacturing stock by the assessee in the audit report. The Revenue contended that the assessee's firm was involved in manufacturing chemicals, which was not mentioned in the books of account but was part of the audit report. The Revenue raised three grounds challenging the deletion of the addition.

2. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee, a partnership firm engaged in trading of acids and chemicals, had disclosed raw material and finished products in the audit report, indicating manufacturing activity. The AO added an estimated closing stock of ?2,62,92,142 as manufacturing stock. The assessee explained the discrepancy as a typographical error in the audit report, but the AO did not accept the explanation, citing inconsistencies in the details provided.

3. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, emphasizing that the AO failed to specify reasons for rejecting the books of accounts. The CIT(A) noted the improvement in sales and net profit over time, indicating the correctness of the accounts. The CIT(A) found the AO's rejection unjustified and directed the deletion of the addition.

4. The Tribunal considered the explanations provided by the assessee regarding the typographical error in the audit report, leading to the incorrect disclosure of manufacturing stock. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the addition made by the AO was not justified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition.

5. The cross-objection filed by the assessee supporting the CIT(A)'s order became academic and was dismissed. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee, affirming the deletion of the addition made by the AO regarding the manufacturing stock disclosure issue.