2018 (5) TMI 251 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of cash deposit in the bank account - unaccounted income as claimed as sale of stock by the assessee - Held that - Sale made by the assessee out of his opening stock cannot be treated as unexplained income to be taxed as income from other sources - the stock was available with the assessee in his books of account and trading in such stock including purchase, sale, opening and closing stock (quantity wise and value wise) has been accepted by the department year after year and in some years under scrutiny proceedings, therefore, non existence of stock or business cannot be upheld. The sale of stock in the earlier years and the sale of balance left out stock in subsequent years has been accepted or has not been disturbed, then to hold that no stock was sold in this year and remained with the assessee will be difficult proposition; thirdly, inquiry and inspection by the AO done much after the closure of business may not be persuasive for the past events especially in wake of facts as discussed above; and lastly, once neither any item in the trading account, nor gross profit has been rejected, then one part of credit side of the trading account, that is, sales cannot be discarded completely so as to hold that it is unexplained money. Because here in this case in the earlier years, scrutiny assessment have been done whereby the assessee s opening stock, closing stock and trading activities have been duly accepted and it is not a simple case where mere return income has been accepted u/s 143(1). Thus, we hold that AO is not justified under law to treat the sales as income from unexplained sources and accordingly addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT (A) is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of ?4,20,62,550/- as unaccounted income.
2. Physical verification of business premises.
3. Rejection of business existence and trading activities.
4. Inquiry and scrutiny of past assessments.
5. Acceptance of opening and closing stock.
6. Credibility of evidence provided by the assessee.
7. Rule of consistency in tax assessments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of ?4,20,62,550/- as Unaccounted Income:
The assessee challenged the addition of ?4,20,62,550/- representing cash deposits in the bank account as unaccounted income, claiming it as sales from stock. The AO observed anomalies in the sales records, such as fresh computer printouts of cash sales vouchers and lack of weighing machines, which raised doubts about the genuineness of the transactions. The AO concluded that the entire cash deposits were unexplained income and should be taxed as 'income from other sources'.

2. Physical Verification of Business Premises:
The AO conducted a physical verification of the business premises at Kon Village, Panvel, Raigad, and found no evidence of business activities. The area was dominated by construction sites, and the specific plot was abandoned with no trace of business operations. This led the AO to question the existence of the trading business.

3. Rejection of Business Existence and Trading Activities:
The AO noted that the business premises were not traceable, and no local residents were aware of any fabric trading activities. The AO also highlighted the lack of infrastructure, such as weighing machines and storage space, necessary for the claimed volume of business. The AO concluded that the trading business did not exist, and the cash deposits were unaccounted income.

4. Inquiry and Scrutiny of Past Assessments:
The assessee argued that the business model and stock details had been accepted in previous assessments, invoking the rule of consistency. However, the AO countered that each assessment year is independent, and past acceptance does not guarantee the genuineness of the current year's transactions. The AO emphasized that the inquiry was conducted based on the current year's records and findings.

5. Acceptance of Opening and Closing Stock:
The assessee provided detailed stock reconciliation and argued that the opening and closing stock had been accepted in previous years. The AO did not reject the opening and closing stock but questioned the authenticity of the sales transactions. The AO's focus was on the unexplained cash deposits rather than the stock details.

6. Credibility of Evidence Provided by the Assessee:
The assessee submitted various documents, including cash memos, stock registers, and confirmations from M/s. S.K. Wheels Pvt. Ltd. regarding rent-free accommodation. The AO rejected these documents, citing lack of credibility and corroborative evidence. The AO also noted that the electricity bills and rental receipts did not conclusively link to the business premises.

7. Rule of Consistency in Tax Assessments:
The assessee argued for the application of the rule of consistency, stating that similar business models and stock details had been accepted in previous years. The AO, however, maintained that each assessment year is independent, and the principle of res judicata does not apply. The AO's inquiry and findings were based on the current year's records and physical verification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal analyzed the entire case, considering the AO's inquiry, past assessments, and the evidence provided by the assessee. It noted that the assessee had a substantial opening stock accepted in previous years, and the sales were made from this stock. The Tribunal found that the AO's inquiry, conducted after the business closure, did not conclusively negate the existence of the trading business. It held that the sales could not be treated as unexplained income, as the stock details were consistent with past records. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of ?4,20,62,550/-. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

← Previous Next →