2014 (2) TMI 996 - AT - Income Tax

Restriction of addition on account of difference in stock - During the course of survey difference in physical stock as compared to the book stock was found. AO has noted that the assessee could not reconcile the difference - the contention of Assessee cannot be accepted that there was mistake in stock taking - with respect to addition made on account of difference in stock, when the difference in stock is found, addition on account of gross/Net profit of such difference can be made instead of the entire difference being added to the income - the AO was not justified in making the addition of the entire difference found in the stocks as income of the Assessee - the gross profit declared by the Assessee for the year under consideration is 22.96% , the addition is restricted made on the basis of gross profit Decided partly in favour of Revenue. Addition made on account of construction of godown Held that - The expenditure in construction of godown was done by Assessee in the year under appeal and earlier years - The percentage of expense, incurred during the year works out to around 26% - valuation is a subjective exercise and in which case the estimates made of construction would differ from valuer to valuer - the Assessee has not maintained books of account with respect to the cost of construction thus, the estimate of addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice the AO is directed to restrict the addition to 7,00,000 Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Addition on account of difference in stock found during the survey.
2. Addition on account of excess shortage in stock.
3. Addition on account of estimated unaccounted sale value of Tobacco kandi.
4. Addition on account of valuation of godown construction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition on account of difference in stock found during the survey:

The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 24,27,523/- to Rs. 1,62,827/- based on the difference in stock found during the survey. The Assessee argued that the stock discrepancy was due to incorrect inventory records. The CIT(A) accepted the Assessee's explanation that certain stocks were misclassified, thus reducing the discrepancy. However, the Tribunal noted that the physical stock was taken in the presence of the Assessee, who did not point out any discrepancies at that time. The Tribunal held that the entire difference should not be added to the income, but rather the gross profit element of the difference should be considered. The Tribunal thus restricted the addition to Rs. 6,00,000/- based on the gross profit rate of 22.96%.

2. Addition on account of excess shortage in stock:

The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 15,29,016/- to Rs. 1,66,671/- due to excess shortage in stock. The Assessee contended that the shortage was due to misclassification of goods in process as finished goods. The CIT(A) accepted the Assessee's explanation and reduced the addition. The Tribunal, considering the gross profit approach, partly allowed the appeal, restricting the addition to Rs. 6,00,000/-.

3. Addition on account of estimated unaccounted sale value of Tobacco kandi:

The Assessee argued that the addition of Rs. 1,19,256/- for unaccounted sales of Tobacco kandi was excessive and only the gross profit should be added. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the entire sale value should be added as the corresponding purchases were already debited in the books. The Tribunal, considering the gross profit approach, partly allowed the appeal, restricting the addition to Rs. 6,00,000/-.

4. Addition on account of valuation of godown construction:

The AO noticed a significant difference between the construction cost shown by the Assessee and the valuation by the DVO. The CIT(A) averaged the DVO's valuation and the Assessee's registered valuer's estimate, resulting in an addition of Rs. 21,08,892/-. The Assessee argued that the books of accounts were not rejected, and the addition was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the valuation is subjective and the Assessee had not maintained specific books for construction costs. The Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to Rs. 7,00,000/-.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partly allowed both the Assessee's and the Revenue's appeals, modifying the additions based on the gross profit approach and considering the subjective nature of valuation. The final additions were restricted to Rs. 6,00,000/- for stock discrepancies and Rs. 7,00,000/- for the valuation of godown construction.

← Previous Next →