2014 (3) TMI 323 - AT - Income Tax

Reduction made on unaccounted stock Held that - The stock belonging to BDC was claimed by it in the return filed by it and same was assessed in its hands thus, there is no reason to hold that stock belonging to BDC was not lying at the business premises of the assessee Revenue could not controvert the findings given by the FAA - AO had made no inquiry about the claim made by the assessee , though documentary evidences were produced by the assessee thus, the order of the FAA does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity. The fact that goods having tag price of 1.01 Crores were sold for Rs. 52.4 lakhs clearly shows that assessee was offering hefty discount to the customers - FAA has held that adopting the tag price as base price for calculating the value of stock was not proper as it would give absurd results thus, no fault can be found in his observations - cash sales do not prove that transactions entered in to by the assessee were not genuine - FAA has found that in the case under consideration cash sales were more than the cheque- sales thus, genuineness of the cash sales has rightly been accepted by the FAA - FAA had committed no mistake in accepting the submission of the assessee that tag price could not be taken as base price for arriving at difference in stock Decided against Revenue. Additions sustained by FAA - Method of valuation of stock - Goods belonging to BDC were lying at the business premises of the assessee Held that - FAA has to follow the same rules which an AO is supposed to follow - addition has been sustained, though partially, by making general observations - He adopted GP@50%, as against the 42% shown by the asessee for computing the difference, but basis for rejecting the gross profit rate of the is missing in his order - for adopting the selling price of the stock, found during survey, at 70 % of the tag price of and 50% of GP - FAA has not given any reasons - if he had evidence of excess stock, he should have confronted the asessee with evidences the order of the FAA set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of stock lying in the premises of the appellant on consignment basis.
2. Valuation of unaccounted stock.
3. Method of valuation and value of the stock on the day of survey.
4. Determination of the actual sale price versus the tag price.
5. Acceptance of the stock belonging to other parties.
6. Genuineness of cash sales and discrepancies in the sales register.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of Stock on Consignment Basis:
The AO contested that the stock lying in the premises belonged to the appellant and not to M/s Benzer Design Centre (BDC). The FAA, however, accepted the appellant's claim, supported by invoices and consignment notes, that the stock worth Rs. 79,91,225/- belonged to BDC and was on consignment basis. The FAA noted that BDC had duly disclosed these items in its inventory, which was assessed and accepted by the AO in BDC's case. The ITAT upheld the FAA's decision, confirming that the stock belonged to BDC and not the appellant.

2. Valuation of Unaccounted Stock:
The AO valued the stock at the tag price minus a gross profit (GP) margin of 42%, resulting in an unaccounted stock addition of Rs. 1,02,66,433/-. The FAA reduced this addition to Rs. 25,08,033/- by considering a 30% reduction from the tag price to arrive at the actual sale price, which was accepted by the ITAT. The FAA's method was based on the fact that the actual sale price was generally lower than the tag price due to discounts and rebates.

3. Method of Valuation and Value of Stock on the Day of Survey:
The AO's valuation method was based on the tag price, which was contested by the appellant. The FAA agreed with the appellant that the tag price should not be the base for valuation as it would lead to an inflated stock value. The FAA considered the actual sales data, showing significant discounts, and concluded that the stock should be valued at 70% of the tag price. The ITAT upheld this valuation method.

4. Determination of Actual Sale Price versus Tag Price:
The FAA observed that the actual sale price was often lower than the tag price due to customer negotiations and discounts. This was supported by a detailed statement showing a significant difference between the tag price and the actual sale price. The ITAT agreed with the FAA's observation, noting that the AO's reliance on the tag price was incorrect.

5. Acceptance of Stock Belonging to Other Parties:
The FAA accepted the appellant's claim that stock worth Rs. 79,91,225/- belonged to BDC, based on documentary evidence. However, the claim for stock worth Rs. 3,85,200/- belonging to other parties was not substantiated and was therefore disallowed. The ITAT upheld the FAA's decision, confirming the acceptance of BDC's stock and the disallowance of the unsubstantiated claim.

6. Genuineness of Cash Sales and Discrepancies in Sales Register:
The AO questioned the genuineness of cash sales, while the FAA found no evidence of suppression or unaccounted sales. The FAA noted that cash sales were common in the appellant's business and were supported by proper records. The ITAT agreed with the FAA, stating that the AO had not provided any concrete evidence to doubt the genuineness of the cash sales.

Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the FAA's decision to reduce the addition for unaccounted stock to Rs. 25,08,033/-, confirming the valuation method based on actual sale prices rather than tag prices. The ITAT also confirmed the acceptance of the stock belonging to BDC and the genuineness of cash sales, rejecting the AO's appeal and partly allowing the appellant's appeal.