2024 (8) TMI 936 - HC - Income Tax

Bogus purchase - Addition of difference in stock in trade u/s. 69C - workings of stock difference arrived at during the course of search by the Investigation Wing - Tribunal held that the respondent/assessee has filed a reconciliation explaining total purchases including purchase of capital goods and purchase returns and tallied with purchases recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee and deleted addition - HELD THAT - Tribunal correctly held that even the Assessing Officer did not have the benefit of relevant workings of stock difference arrived at during the course of search by the Investigation Wing and that the Assessing Officer has completely erred in making additions towards difference in stock in trade as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. Under these circumstances, AO was directed to delete the additions made towards difference in stock in trade u/s. 69C. Assessing Officer has made additions towards stock in trade difference u/s. 69C of the Act purely on surmises and suspicion manner, without there being any supporting evidence to justify additions - even the AO did not have the benefit of relevant workings of stock difference arrived at during the course of search by the Investigation Wing. AO has completely erred in making additions towards difference in stock in trade as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition towards bogus purchase of Rs. 25,00,000/-.
2. Explanation of source for cash payments of Rs. 25,00,000/-.
3. Addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- under Section 69C for unaccounted speed money payments.
4. Source of payments from bank withdrawals.
5. Deletion of addition towards difference in purchases under Section 69C amounting to Rs. 5,67,68,336/-.
6. Discrepancy in purchase figures provided by the assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition towards Bogus Purchase of Rs. 25,00,000/-:
The appellant contended that the ITAT erred in directing the deletion of the addition towards bogus purchase. The Assessing Officer had made this addition based on the suspicion that the purchases were not genuine. However, the ITAT found that the purchases were adequately explained and supported by relevant documents, leading to the deletion of the addition.

2. Explanation of Source for Cash Payments of Rs. 25,00,000/-:
The appellant argued that the ITAT's finding that the cash payments were sourced from bank withdrawals was contrary to the facts on record, as such withdrawals were not recorded in the assessee's books. The ITAT, however, accepted the explanation provided by the assessee that the cash payments were indeed sourced from bank withdrawals, which were subsequently reconciled with the books of accounts.

3. Addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- under Section 69C for Unaccounted Speed Money Payments:
The appellant challenged the ITAT's decision to hold that the addition under Section 69C for unaccounted speed money payments could not be made since the assessee had not claimed the expenditure in the books of accounts. The ITAT concluded that without a corresponding claim of expenditure, the addition under Section 69C was not justified.

4. Source of Payments from Bank Withdrawals:
The appellant contended that the ITAT erred in holding that the source of the payments was withdrawals from bank accounts without appreciating that such payments would have been accounted for in the books of accounts. The ITAT found that the bank withdrawals were adequately explained and reconciled with the payments, thus supporting the assessee's claim.

5. Deletion of Addition towards Difference in Purchases under Section 69C Amounting to Rs. 5,67,68,336/-:
The appellant argued that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition made towards the difference in purchases under Section 69C. The ITAT observed that the Assessing Officer had made the addition based on an incorrect computation of stock differences and failed to consider the reconciliation provided by the assessee. The ITAT found that the purchases were reconciled with the books of accounts, leading to the deletion of the addition.

6. Discrepancy in Purchase Figures Provided by the Assessee:
The appellant contended that the ITAT failed to consider the discrepancy in the purchase figures provided by the assessee. The ITAT noted that the assessee had furnished different purchase figures for the period till the date of search and those disclosed in the Settlement Application. The ITAT found that the assessee had provided a reconciliation explaining the total purchases, which was consistent with the books of accounts.

Conclusion:
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer made additions based on incorrect computations and without proper verification of the assessee's explanations and reconciliations. The ITAT directed the deletion of the additions made under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure and differences in stock. The High Court affirmed the ITAT's findings, stating that there was no substantial question of law arising for consideration. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →