2013 (8) TMI 830 - AT - Income Tax

Writing off of stock - CIT deleted addition - Held that - provision for slow moving/obsolete inventory, which is created each year in the profits & loss account and balance sheet prepared in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956, has been specifically added back while computing taxable income under the IT Act, while filing the return of income of the respective year i.e. the assessee has not claimed deduction on the Provision created in its accounts, in its income tax computation in the earlier years - assessee had sold the slow moving stock and disclosed the sale proceeds, in its sales account. The provision was written back as no longer required in the accounts and as the provision was not claimed as an expense in its income tax computation in the year in which it was created, the same need not be added back once again. The action of the AO is a double addition. A figure which was never claimed or allowed as a deduction in the earlier year was added back - CIT DR has mistook the write back of provision of inventory, as sale proceeds of slow moving/obsolete inventory of raw materials and thus the confusion. The write back of provision is not sale proceeds of slow moving/obsolete inventory. The sale proceeds have been accounted for as income under the head turnover Gross turnover in the profits & loss account. It is not a case where sale proceeds of these obsolete stocks are not accounted for at all - no infirmity in the order of the first appellate authority - Decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Correctness of the addition of Rs. 2,00,84,000/- on account of stock written off in earlier years but sold during the year.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 148:
The reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the grounds that the income of Rs. 2,00,84,000/- had escaped assessment. The AO issued a notice dated 02.02.2010, proposing to reassess the income for the year under consideration. The appellant responded by requesting the AO to treat the original return as the return filed pursuant to the notice under Section 148. The reassessment order was subsequently passed on 08.12.2010, reassessing the total income at Rs. 14,55,56,650/- after making an addition of Rs. 2,00,84,000/-.

2. Correctness of the Addition of Rs. 2,00,84,000/-:
The AO observed that the assessee had deducted Rs. 2,00,84,000/- on account of stock written off in earlier years, which was sold during the year. The AO contended that since this amount had already been written off in earlier years, it should not be deducted from the net income of the current year. Consequently, the AO disallowed this amount and added it back to the net taxable income of the assessee.

Upon appeal, the CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee, noting that the provisions made in earlier years had been added back to the taxable income of those years. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold slow-moving/obsolete inventory and showed the amount as sales. Since the provision created in earlier years had already been added back to the taxable income, the reversal of the provision during the year could not be added again to the income. Thus, the CIT (A) deleted the addition made by the AO.

The revenue, aggrieved by this decision, appealed on the grounds that the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition despite the assessee's failure to substantiate its contention with supporting evidence before the AO. The revenue argued that the assessee had suppressed profit by reducing the sales value from the net profit.

The assessee's counsel supported the CIT (A)'s decision, arguing that the AO misunderstood the accounting entries. The assessee had not claimed the provision for slow-moving/obsolete inventory as an expense in its income tax computation in earlier years. The provision was written back as it was no longer required, and the sale proceeds were accounted for as income under "Gross turnover."

The Tribunal, after careful consideration, agreed with the CIT (A) and found no merit in the revenue's arguments. The Tribunal noted that the write-back of the provision was not the sale proceeds of the slow-moving/obsolete inventory, which had already been accounted for in the sales account. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the addition of Rs. 2,00,84,000/- made by the AO was deleted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT (A)'s order, concluding that the provision write-back was correctly handled and did not result in double addition. The reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were upheld, but the specific addition in question was not justified.

← Previous Next →