2010 (8) TMI 17 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained Investment - surrender of excess stock and excess scrap amounting to Rs. 75, 00,000/- during survey operation u/s 133A - This amount was added by the AO as unexplained investment in stock under Section 68 of the Act 1961 as this amount was neither added as the surrendered amount to the total income nor was mentioned in the audit report. However, the respondent assessee contended that at the time of survey operation under Section 133A, administrative, financial and other expenses were not considered and excess stock and scrap was eventually duly recorded in the books of accounts. Respondent-assessee further contended that sale of such stock and scrap was also recorded during the regular course of business after the survey operation. Held that - as the assessee had produced each and every invoice in respect of goods sold and produced quantity wise details of unsold stock as well as surrendered stock vis-a-vis stock sold before the end of the year duly supported by documents, it is not correct to allege that stock surrendered was not reflected in the books of account. In our opinion, the stock sold after the date of survey and the sales proceeds were duly credited in the accounts without claiming set off of its cost resulting in higher profits. Consequently the addition made by the AO cannot be retained.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging ITAT order on excess stock addition.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contesting the ITAT's decision to delete the addition of Rs. 27,60,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of excess stock for the Assessment Year 2003-2004.

2. The case involved a survey operation under Section 133A of the Act in which the respondent-assessee surrendered excess stock and scrap amounting to Rs. 75,00,000. The AO added this amount as unexplained investment in stock under Section 68 of the Act. The respondent argued that administrative and financial expenses were not considered during the survey, and the excess stock and scrap were duly recorded in the books of accounts and sold during the regular course of business.

3. The CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 47,40,000 to the assessee, acknowledging an excess valuation in the closing stock inventory during the survey. However, the addition of Rs. 27,60,000 was confirmed. The respondent appealed against this decision.

4. The ITAT allowed the respondent's appeal after verifying sales invoices, parties to whom goods were sold, excise stock register, ledger account of scrap sales, and inventory of finished goods. The ITAT found no merit in the AO's addition.

5. The appellant contended that the ITAT erred in law by deleting the addition without sufficient evidence to dislodge the AO's findings. However, the court noted that the respondent had produced invoices and quantity-wise details of unsold and surrendered stock supported by documents.

6. The court found that the stock sold after the survey was duly recorded in the accounts without claiming set off of its cost, resulting in higher profits. The addition made by the AO was deemed unjustified, and the factual findings by the ITAT were upheld as not perverse or contrary to the record.

7. Consequently, the court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the case, and the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit. The judgment was delivered on August 3, 2010, by Justice Manmohan, Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.