2015 (3) TMI 230 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed stock - Admission of alternate plea regarding making an addition after telescoping and taking the peak value of the negative stock - Held that - No fault can be found from ld. CIT(A) in accepting the assessee's alternate plea of peak valuation of negative stock. The ld. Counsel for the assessee could not improve his case from the level of the ld. CIT(A) i.e. in respect of two instances. The stock discrepancy is not satisfactorily explained. In these circumstances, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Reduction of trading addition by the CIT(A).
2. Assessment of undisclosed stock and trading addition.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reduction of trading addition by the CIT(A)
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order reducing the trading addition from Rs. 16,41,193 to Rs. 1,24,173 for the assessment year 2007-08. The AO observed negative balances in the stock register, implying sales from undisclosed stock. The AO made an addition based on instances where the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence. The CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's decision, considering the appellant's explanation and evidence. The CIT(A) recognized the appellant's regular accounting practices and reduced the trading addition to Rs. 1,24,173 after accepting the appellant's plea regarding peak valuation of negative stock. The CIT(A) found no discrepancy in stock available and sales made, leading to the reduction in the trading addition.

Issue 2: Assessment of undisclosed stock and trading addition
The appellant dealt in Seeds, Fertilizers, and Pesticides, maintaining books of account. The AO identified negative balances in the stock register, indicating sales without recorded stock. The AO made an addition of Rs. 16,41,193 for unrecorded investment in stock purchases. The appellant argued that bills were entered upon receipt, leading to discrepancies in stock entries. The appellant's contention was supported by maintaining audited accounts and regular accounting practices. The CIT(A) acknowledged the appellant's explanations and reduced the trading addition to Rs. 1,24,173, considering the peak valuation of negative stock. Both parties were aggrieved and appealed. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and the appellant's cross-objection.

In conclusion, the ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the trading addition, considering the appellant's explanations and regular accounting practices. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining proper documentation to support stock discrepancies and highlighted the significance of peak valuation in assessing negative stock.