2006 (5) TMI 70 - HC - Income Tax

Variation of closing stock declared in return and in the stock statement given to the bank - Royalty - 1. Whether Tribunal was justified in holding the arbitrary fixation of royalty payment by the lower authority by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) when the transaction was held to be genuine and there was no material to establish the market value of the services rendered especially when the agreed royalty had been paid to the contracting party by the appellant? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the closing stock as shown by the appellant which was subjected to audit u/s 44AB to support the value of closing stock declared to the bank? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the impugned addition on account of variation in the value of closing stock between the value declared in the accounts and the value declared to the bank as made by the assessing authority when the assessing authority did not either follow the value shown in the accounts in full or the value as shown in the bank statement in full? - We answer the first question in favour of the assessee. We further answer questions Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of the Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of royalty claim by assessing authority and appellate authority.
2. Addition made by assessing authority regarding variation in closing stock.
3. Questions raised by the appellant regarding the judgment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of royalty claim
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing machinery equipment, entered into an agreement for royalty with Results Engineers and Consultants. The assessing authority disallowed the royalty claim, which was challenged before the Appellate Commissioner. The Appellate Commissioner reversed the assessing authority's findings on sham transactions but reduced the royalty relief from 5% to 2%. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The High Court held that the transaction was genuine based on detailed findings of the Appellate Commissioner. The court found the reduction of royalty to 2% arbitrary and unsustainable, ruling in favor of the appellant's entitlement to the 5% royalty claimed.

Issue 2: Addition in closing stock
The assessing authority made an addition based on the variation in closing stock declared by the appellant. This addition was challenged before the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal, both of which dismissed the appeal. The High Court examined the evidence and upheld the findings of the authorities, stating that no acceptable evidence was presented to dispute the bank statement regarding the closing stock. The court accepted the authorities' decision on the closing stock issue, ruling against the appellant.

Issue 3: Questions raised by the appellant
The appellant raised questions regarding the arbitrary fixation of royalty payment, the treatment of closing stock, and the variation in stock values. The High Court addressed these questions, ruling in favor of the appellant on the royalty issue but in favor of the Revenue on the closing stock matters. The court disposed of the appeal partially, allowing it in part and reserving liberty for the appellant to address any other grievances in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment favored the appellant on the royalty claim issue but upheld the authorities' decisions regarding the closing stock matter. The detailed analysis of the facts and legal arguments led to a partial allowance of the appeal, with each party bearing its own costs.